P^M^^^^:::^^  .J  .3    3  J 


^ 


MMENTARY 

ON 

KAND    I 


^^^m^'T^ 


tl: 


iliiliilpiliiiM 


^^^^^  ^  *.*...,«  ^„„. 


n  'd^o 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


'if. 


Shelf. 


Division    JL-J'rrJl.r>'.->-^     '    ' 
Seclioti      , Jr\>D\  r^ 
Number V>.....r!rr'..  


f'l  *Jt  -iV  -J/^  ^ 


AN 


AMERICAN  COMMENTARY 


ON    THE 


NEW   TESTAMENT. 


EDITED  BY 

ALVAH  HOVEY,  D.D.,  LL.D. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 

1420  Chestnut  Stkeet. 


CS.CaiiSimy,n"S:Delt 


T:dw<^^Vireilsr 


Entered,  aeeorrling  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  yeP"  1881,  by  the 

AMERICAN    BAPTIST   PUBLICATION    SOCIETY, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  V/ashington. 


ELECTROTYPF.D   BT 

Westcot-  Aj  thomsojs, 

PHILADELPHIA. 


PREFACE. 


Most  unexpectedly,  it  falls  to  my  lot  to  send  out  the  earliest  volume  in  this 
Commentary  on  the  New  Testament.  I  regret  that  instead  of  following  I  am 
compelled  to  lead  the  way,  for  I  have  no  doubt  that  some  of  ray  colaborers,  with 
greater  learning  and  experience,  are  in  possession  of  methods  that  would  make 
an  opening  volume  better  suited  to  its  place.  But  under  the  wise  leadership  of 
the  General  Editor  each  writer,  if  I  may  judge  from  my  own  experience,  is  al- 
lowed a  genuine  liberty  in  modes  of  working,  subject  only  to  some  excellent  general 
counsels.  The  method  of  exposition  that  appears  in  this  volume  is  therefore  my 
own,  and  other  writers  are  in  no  sense  pledged  to  follow  it.  If  the  reader  sees 
faults  in  it,  he  need  not  fear  that  they  Avill  be  perpetuated  in  subsequent  volumes. 

As  to  the  method  of  exposition  that  I  have  followed,  the  Commentary  will 
speak  for  itself;  and  yet  an  introductory  word  may  not  be  amiss.  The  reader  will 
find  here,  I  trust,  no  personal  fancies  or  exegetical  refinements.  It  has  been  my 
aim  to  give  the  plain,  straightforward,  practical  exposition  of  reverent  common 
sense.  If  the  method  is  more  homiletical  than  critical,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that 
the  work  is  the  Avork  of  a  preacher.  I  have  sought  to  omit  what  is  needless,  and 
so  I  have  usually  given  the  results  of  labor  without  the  processes  by  which  they 
were  reached.  It  has  not  seemed  necessary  to  spend  much  time  in  combating  views 
that  I  did  not  accept,  or  in  discussing  the  claims  of  various  interpretations.  Not 
much,  therefore,  of  a  controversial  kind  will  be  found  here.  Nor  have  I  usually 
made  reference  to  authors  whose  views  I  accepted.  No  man  can  write  without 
indebtedness  to  others,  but  in  such  a  work  as  this  it  does  not  seem  desirable  to  be 
always  citing  authorities.  My  largest  indebtedness  is  of  course  to  ]\Ieyer,  and  my 
next  is,  I  think,  to  Dr.  Plumptre,  who  has  done  admirable  work  on  the  synoptical 
Gospels  in  Bishop  Ellicott's  Neiv  Testament  Commentary  for  English  Readers. 

I  have  labored  throughout  on  the  principle  of  faith  in  the  richness  of  Scripture 
— in  the  richness,  not  of  what  men  may  say  about  Scripture,  but  of  Scripture  itself 
Especially  do  I  believe  in  the  intrinsic  richness  of  the  Gospels.  If  reverent  in- 
terpretation can  bring  out  what  is  really  there,  it  will  be  plain  that  there  is  no 


6  PREFACE. 


need  of  human  additions  or  supplements,  or  even  of  elaborate  development  of 
thought,  in  order  that  the  true  light  may  be  seen.  The  glory  of  God  shines  in  the 
face  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  means  to  the  vision 
of  that  glory.  As  in  his  life  and  death  his  true  Divinity  and  his  true  humanity  were 
adequately  expressed,  so  in  the  records  of  his  life  and  death  the  living  evidences  of 
his  true  Divinity  and  his  true  humanity  are  to  be  found  ;  or,  rather,  there  is  he  him- 
self to  be  discerned,  true  man  and  very  God,  bringing  life  and  salvation.  Hence 
it  is  the  office  of  an  expositor  of  the  Gospels — and  especially  of  an  expositor  of 
this  simplest  and  most  vivid  of  the  Gospels,  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord's  visible  per- 
sonality— to  exhibit  Christ,  representing  with  all  possible  clearness  the  portraiture 
of  the  living  Saviour.  For  this  purpose  the  expositor  should  seize  upon  every 
means  of  making  the  life  and  its  details  and  the  character  and  its  qualities  real 
and  living  to  the  reader ;  for  the  true  subject  of  his  work  is  not  Mark  or  the 
Gospel  of  Mark,  but  Christ  himself  With  the  desire  to  show  forth  his  excellence 
this  Commentary  has  been  written.  It  is  one  man's  humble  and  willing  contribu- 
tion to  the  understanding  of  the  holy  word  and — if  God  will — to  clearness  and 
trueness  of  thought  concerning  him  whom  God  hath  sent.  Many  before  me  have 
wrought  in  this  divine  labor,  and  many  have  wrought  with  so  much  wider  range 
of  knowledge  and  of  power  than  I  that  my  offering  seems  but  a  trifling  one ;  yet 
in  setting  forth  the  excellence  of  our  Saviour  no  man's  earnest  labor  is  in  vain. 
May  this  tribute,  gratefully  laid  at  his  feet,  be  graciously  accepted  and  made  heli> 
ful  to  the  purposes  that  he  holds  dear ! 

W.  N.  CLARKE. 

OCTOBEK   31.  1881. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK. 


THE   WRITER   OF   THIS   GOSPEL. 

No  one  of  the  Gospels  except  the  Fourth  contains  any  internal  evidence  that  help? 
directly  in  identifying  the  author.  We  are  dependent,  therefore,  upon  traditional  sources 
of  information ;  that  is,  upon  information  that  has  been  preserved  outside  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  uniform  testimony  of  Christian  tradition  is  that  this  book  is  rightly 
called  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and  that  the  Mark  (or  Marcus)  whose  name  is  associated 
with  it  is  the  Mark  who  appears  in  the  apostolic  history  and  Epistles.  There  appears 
to  be  no  reason  for  calling  this  testimony  in  question. 

Mark  is  first  mentioned  at  Acts  12  :  12,  a  passage  brief  but  extremely  rich  in  infor- 
mation. We  learn,  first,  that  he  bore  the  Hebrew  name  John  (Jochanan),  and  that  a 
Latin  surname — not  a  Greek — was  added  to  it;  from  which  we  infer,  though  vaguely, 
some  connection,  by  residence  or  by  social  ties,  with  some  Latin-speaking  place  or 
people.  We  learn,  further,  that  his  mother  was  named  Mary,  and  (by  implication)  that 
she  was  a  widow.  The  common  English  version  in  Col.  4  :  10  juakes  her  to  have  been 
the  sister  of  Barnabas,  the  companion  of  Paul  ("Marcus,  sister's  son  to  Barnabas"); 
but  the  word  [anepsios)  means,  more  broadly,  a  cousin — not  a  nephew — and  does  not 
closely  define  the  relation.  The  connection  with  Barnabas,  however,  establishes  a  con- 
nection on  some  side  with  the  tribe  of  Levi  (Acts  4  :  36).  Returning  to  Acts  12  :  12,  we 
learn  from  it  that  the  house  of  Mary  was  the  house  to  which  Peter  betook  himself  when 
miraculously  delivered  from  prison,  and  that  many  were  gathered  there  when  he  arrived, 
and  were  praying ;  whence  we  infer  that  it  was  a  favorite  place  of  resort  for  the  Chris- 
tians in  Jerusalem.  It  probably  contained  an  "  upper  room  "  that  was  used  for  worship, 
possibly  the  "upper  chamber"  of  Acts  1  :  13,  already  consecrated  by  the  establishment 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  within  its  walls.  The  connection  of  the  family  with  Barnabas  is 
a  fact  full  of  suggostiveness.  The  house  would  naturally  be  his  home  when  lie  visited 
Jerusalem.  He  was  there,  apparently,  and  Saul — not  yet  called  Paul — was  witli  him 
(Acts  11  :  29-30  ;  12  :  25),  at  the  time  of  Peter's  deliverance ;  and  they,  as  well  as  Mark, 
may  have  been  present  when  Peter  came  from  the  prison.  All  the  Christian  leaders  would 
be  known  at  the  house  of  the  kinsfolk  of  Barnabas.  The  expression  "  Mark  my  son  " 
used  by  Peter  (1  Pet.  5  :  13)  is  commonly  taken  to  show  that  Mark  had  been  converted 
through  the  influence  of  Peter,  probably  in  early  life  at  his  mother's  home.  The  infer- 
ence may  be  called  probable,  but  cannot  be  regarded  as  certain,  for  the  title  might  be 
merely  a  term  of  endearment  and  a  testimony  to  the  intimate  relations  that  existed 
between  the  two  men.  It  is  a  conjecture  adopted  by  some  tliat  Mark  was  himself  the 
young  man  whom  lie  mentions,  witliout  naming  him,  at  eh.  14  :  51,52,  who  came  forth 
from  his  bed  to  join  Jesus  and  his  company  in  tlie  garden. 

After  the  visit  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  to  Jerusalem,  they  returned  to  Antiooh,  and 
took  Mark  with  them  to  serve  as  a  companion  in  Christian  labor.     When  they  went  out 

7. 


8  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

on  their  first  missionary-journey  Mark  went  with  them  (Acts  13  :  5)  as  their  "attend- 
ant" [hyperetes).  His  office  must  have  been  to  make  necessary  arrangements  for  the 
journey,  and  doubtless  to  aid  in  the  spiritual  work,  perhaps  to  baptize  the  converts.  He 
went  with  them  to  Cyprus,  and  thence  to  Perga  in  Pamphylia,  on  the  coast  of  Asia 
Minor,  but  there  he  departed  from  them,  and  returned  to  Jerusalem.  His  motives  in 
returning  are  nowhere  distinctly  stated,  but  Paul  long  regarded  him  as  worthy  of  blame 
in  the  matter.  It  is  very  certain  that  Mark  "went  not  with  them  to  the  work" — a 
fact  which  Paul  probably  attributed  to  fickleness  or  timidity.  On  setting  out  upon  the 
second  journey  Barnabas  wished  to  take  Mark  again,  but  Paul  was  unwilling,  for  the 
reason  just  mentioned ;  and  the  disagreement  caused  the  unhappy  separation  of  the  two 
apostles  (Acts  15  :  36-40).  Mark  became  the  companion  of  Barnabas,  who  returned  to 
Cyprus,  his  own  country  (Acts  4  :  36).  We  see  Mark  no  more  until  he  appears  in  com- 
pany with  Peter,  who  is  writing  his  First  Epistle  from  Babylon.  Undoubtedly,  this  is 
not  Rome,  as  some  have  imagined,  interpreting  the  name  mystically,  but  the  ancient 
Babylon  of  the  East,  where  there  was  a  considerable  Jewish  community,  to  which  Peter 
may  have  been  making  a  missionary-visit.  Thus  was  renewed  the  relation  that  was 
begun  probably  in  Mark's  own  home  at  Jerusalem.  There  is  no  reason  to  suspect  that 
any  alienation  had  come  in  between  Peter  and  Mark,  or  that  it  was  by  the  alienation 
between  himself  and  Paul  that  Mark  was  driven  back  to  Peter.  He  returned  before 
long  to  Paul,  and  next  appears  in  company  with  him  at  Rome  during  Paul's  first  impris- 
onment (Col.  4  :  10;  Philem.  24).  To  the  Colossians,  Paul  spoke  of  him  with  approval, 
as  one  of  the  few  that  Avere  "of  the  circumcision"  who  had  been  "a  comfort  to  him." 
At  the  same  time  he  spoke  of  Mark  as  not  unlikely  to  visit  Colossse.  Still  later,  when 
Paul  was  in  his  last  imprisonment,  Mark  seems  to  have  been  with  Timothy  at  Ephesus, 
for  Paul  wrote  (2  Tim.  4  :  11),  "Take  Mark,  and  bring  him  with  thee,  for  he  is  useful 
to  me  for  ministering" — i.  e.  "he  is  such  a  companion  and  helper  as  I  need." 

This  is  the  latest  mention  of  Mark  in  the  Scriptures.  The  traditions  concerning  him 
are  inconsistent  and  uncertain.  It  is  alleged  that  he  was  at  Rome  with  Peter,  serving 
as  his  secretary,  but  this  may  be  merely  an  inference  from  the  mystical  interpretation 
of  "  Babylon  "  in  1  Pet.  5  :  13.  It  is  also  said  that  he  founded  the  church  in  Alexandria, 
became  the  Bishop  of  it,  and  suffered  martyrdom  there  in  A.  D.  68,  a  few  years  after  the 
martyrdom  of  the  two  apostles  with  whom  he  had  labored. 

GENUINENESS  OF  THIS  GOSPEL. 

There  has  never  been  any  reasonable  doubt  that  we  have  in  the  existing  book  the 
Gospel  that  Christian  antiquity  attributed  to  Mark.  The  line  of  historical  evidence  is 
unbroken  from  very  early  times.  Within  the  present  century  it  has  been  questioned 
whether  the  orderly  book  that  we  possess  is  truly  described  by  the  language  of  Papias 
that  is  relied  upon  for  the  identification  ;  but  the  question  has  not  disturbed,  and  need 
not  disturb,  the  confidence  of  the  church  in  the  genuineness  of  this  Christian  treasure. 
As  to  the  genuineness  of  the  last  twelve  verses  of  the  book,  however,  there  has  long 
been  doubt.  The  reasons  on  each  side,  and  the  conclusions  that  the  present  writer  is 
compelled  to  adopt,  will  be  given  in  the  note  on  that  passage. 

PLACE   AND   TIME   OF   COMPOSITION. 

Of  the  place,  nothing  definite  is  known.  Tradition  mentions  Rome,  and  no  important 
variation  from  this  testimony  exists ;  but  the  mention  of  Rome  is  so  connected  with  the 
traditions  concerning  close  superintendence  from  Peter  as  scarcely  to  amount  to  inde- 
pendent testimony.     The  place  must  be  left  in  uncertainty. 

As  to  the  time  of  composition  there  are  conflicting  traditions.     Ireuaeus  distinctly 


INTRODUCTION  TO   THE  GOSPEL. 


places  it  after  the  death  of  Peter  and  Paul,  but  the  more  general  tradition  is  that  the 
work  was  done  with  the  knowledge  of  Peter,  and  under  more  or  less  close  supervision 
from  him.  It  has  frequently  been  noticed  that  when  Paul  speaks  of  Mark  to  the  Colos- 
sians  (Col.  4  :  10),  he  introduces  him  as  one  who  has  been  a  comfort  to  himself,  and  as  a 
kinsman  of  Barnabas ;  and  it  has  been  thought  that  he  would  not  have  confined  himself 
to  these  particulars  if  Mark  had  then  had  the  distinction  of  a  biographer  to  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  especially  if  his  work  had  represented  the  remembrances  of  so  highly-hon- 
ored an  apostle  as  Peter.  The  argument  can  scarcely  be  called  conclusive,  but  it  is  not 
without  weight.  The  date  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  which  this  argument  would 
make  to  precede  the  publication  of  Mark's  Gospel,  is,  according  to  Conybcare  and  How- 
son,  A.  D.  ()2 — according  to  Farrar,  63.  The  Gospel  was  certainly  published  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  70. 

Internal  evidence  is  favorable  to  the  belief  in  a  comparatively  early  date.  The  Gos- 
pel of  Mark  contains  the  record  of  our  Saviour's  ministry  in  the  simplest  form.  While 
we  give  no  credence  whatever  to  the  theory  of  the  gradual  growth  of  the  existing  Gos- 
pels by  accretion  round  a  very  small  nucleus  of  genuine  history — a  growth  to  which 
reverence  and  imagination  contributed  more,  perhaps,  than  memory — still,  it  appears 
natural  that  the  simplest  and  briefest  of  the  Gospels  should  be  the  product  of  the  ear- 
liest gathering  of  facts.  That  each  Gospel  is  independent  of  the  others  is  certain.  But 
this  book  reports  merely  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  omitting  all  that  precedes  it,  and  not 
following  the  narrative  beyond  his  resurrection.  Even  within  these  limits,  narrower 
than  those  of  any  other  Gospel,  it  deals  mainly  with  events  rather  than  with  teachings. 
The  other  GosjjcIs — and  most  decidedly  the  latest  of  them — reveal  a  purpose  in  the 
selection  and  arrangement  of  materials — a  purpose  that  corresponds  with  destination  to 
a  certain  class  of  readers.  Something  of  the  same  is  apparent  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark, 
but  less  than  in  any  of  the  others.  Mark  betrays  less  than  any  other  evangelist  of  any 
consciousness  beyond  that  of  a  reporter  of  the  facts.  It  is  impossible  to  tell  precisely  at 
what  date  any  Gospel  of  the  four  was  sent  forth  among  the  Christians,  or  was  written 
out ;  but  we  have  little  hesitation  in  speaking  of  Mark's  as  the  earliest  Gospel.  Whether 
or  not  it  is  in  its  present  form  the  earliest-written  of  the  Gospels,  it  is  inwardly  the 
earliest,  representing  the  earliest  collation  of  facts  about  the  life  of  Jesus. 

THE  LANGUAGE  AND  THE  READERS. 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  book  was  originally  written  in  Greek.  Sugges- 
tions of  a  Latin  original  have  been  made,  mainly  by  Roman  Catholic  writers,  but  the 
idea  is  probably  nothing  more  than  a  conjectural  inference  from  the  supposed  connec- 
tion of  Mark  with  Rome,  which  is  itself  largely  dependent  for  historic  sui)port  upon  the 
supposed  relations  of  Peter  with  Rome.  In  view  of  the  relations  of  the  Latin  lan- 
guage to  the  early  churches,  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  an  original  Gospel  in  that 
tongue  should  have  perished  and  left  no  trace  of  its  existence. 

That  ]\Lark  designed  his  Gospel  for  Gentile  readers  is  established  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  doubt  by  internal  evidence.  The  differences  between  this  book  and  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew  are  exactly  such  as  would  exist  between  a  book  for  Gentiles  and  a  book  for 
Jews.  Mark  omits  the  genealogy  of  Jesus,  which  Matthew  traces  back  as  far  as  to 
Abraham,  the  father  of  Israel.  He  omits  the  spiritual  interj)retation  of  the  law,  which 
Matthew  preserves  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Mark  never  uses  the  word  tiomos, 
"  law,"  or,  nomiZ-os,  "  lawyer.'  Never,  except  in  his  opening  sentence,  does  he  refer  in 
his  own  person  to  the  Old  Testament.  The  entire  structure  of  the  First  Gospel  reveals 
a  purpose  that  is  wholly  wanting  in  the  Second — the  purpose  to  appeal  to  the  Jewish 
mind  in  the  special  conditions  of  the  first  Christian  age.     On  the  other  hand,  Mark 


10  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

inserts  many  words  of  explanation  that  would  never  be  needed  or  thought  of  in  writing 
for  Jews.  Notice  especially  the  elaborate  account  of  the  customs  of  "  the  Pharisees  and 
all  the  Jews  "  regarding  ablutions,  which  is  by  itself  sufficient  to  establish  the  fact  that 
Mark  was  writing  for  Gentiles.  Notice  also  "the  river  Jordan"  (1  :  5),  which  would 
scarcely  be  written  for  Palestinian  readers ;  the  remark  that  at  the  time  of  the  Passover 
"it  was  not  the  season  of  figs"  (11  :  13) ;  the  mention  of  the  fact  that  the  Mount  of 
Olives  was  "over  against  the  temple"  (13  :  3) ;  the  closer  definition  of  the  Prsetorium 
(15  :  16);  and  the  only  clear  definition  of  "the  Preparation"  (15  :  42).  Notice  also 
that  while  Mark  delights  to  employ  the  very  words,  in  the  Aramaic  tongue,  that  fell 
from  the  lips  of  Jesus,  he  uniformly  translates  them — a  thing  that  he  would  not  do  for 
Jewish  readers,  a  thing  that  Matthew  never  does,  except  in  the  case  of  the  weighty 
utterance  of  Jesus  on  the  cross.  (See  Mark  5  :  41 ;  7  :  11,  34.)  The  doctrine  of  the 
universality  of  the  Gospel,  or  its  destination  to  all  men,  is  a  less  striking  characteristic 
feature  of  Mark's  book  than  of  Luke's,  but  it  is  more  prominent  here  than  in  Matthew. 
Mark,  like  Luke,  had  journeyed  and  labored  widely  among  the  Gentiles,  and  it  is  plain 
that  for  Gentile  readers  he  designed  his  Gospel. 

More  closely  than  this  it  is  impossible  to  define  with  certainty  the  readers  for  whom 
this  book  was  prepared.  Tradition  does  something  toward  connecting  the  name  of 
Mark  with  the  Christian  community  at  Eome,  though  its  testimony  is  not  so  definite 
and  independent  as  to  be  unquestionable,  and  it  has  often  been  thought  that  the  Latin- 
isms  that  Mark  uses  are  confirmatory  of  the  belief  that  he  was  writing  for  Roman  Chris- 
tians. Latinisms  are  somewhat  more  frequent  in  Mark  than  in  the  other  evangelists, 
but  the  inference  that  he  was  writing  for  Romans  is  too  precarious  to  be  trusted.  It  has 
already  been  noticed  that  the  surname  of  the  writer,  Marcus,  was  Latin,  and  not  Greek, 
and  that  that  fact  vaguely  suggests  some  association  of  his  family  with  some  Latin- 
speaking  people  or  place.  Such  a  connection  would  account  for  all  Mark's  Latinisms. 
Yet  so  few  are  they,  and  so  widely  diff"used  was  the  Latin  tongue,  that  they  scarcely 
need  to  be  accounted  for.  In  view  of  the  relations  that  the  Greek-speaking  countries 
sustained  to  the  Roman  government,  there  must  have  been  Latinisms  everywhere  in  the 
Greek  of  the  people,  and  in  writers  who  were  themselves  of  the  common  people  they 
would  inevitably  be  found.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Gospel  of  Mark  contains  eleven 
words  that  are  Latin  words  borrowed  into  Greek.  Of  these,  four — namely,  legeon, 
kenturid)),  spekoulatOr,  and  praifOrion — are  words  that  came  in  with  the  Roman  army ; 
two — denarion  and  kodrantes — are  names  of  Roman  coins;  one^phrage/loun — is  the  verb 
that  denotes  a  Roman  military  punishment;  and  one — kensos — is  the  name  of  the  tribute 
paid  to  the  Roman  government.  Thus  eight  of  the  eleven  words  had  come  into  com- 
mon speech  by  the  presence  of  the  Roman  power.  Of  the  remaining  three,  two  are 
names  of  objects  of  daily  use — krabbafos,  "bed,"  and  xesfes,  "cup" — and  the  third, 
poiesai  to  hikanon,  is  a  Greek  equivalent  for  the  Latin  verb  safis/acere.  Of  these  eleven, 
moreover,  only  four  are  peculiar  to  Mark — namely,  kenturiun,  spekoiilafdr,  .vesfes,  and 
poiesai  to  hikanon.  The  other  seven  are  found  in  the  other  Gospels.  In  the  other  Gospels 
these  seven  Latin  words  occur  twenty-seven  times ;  in  Mark,  they  occur  thirteen  times. 
In  such  an  array  of  Latinisms  there  is  certainly  nothing  unusual :  Mark  merely  uses  a 
little  more  of  the  everywhere-present  foreign  phraseology  than  the  others  ;  and  no  infer^ 
ences  can  be  drawn  from  the  fact.  It  may  be  true  that  he  wrote  for  the  Roman  Chris- 
tians, but  it  is  not  proved  by  his  Latinisms. 

THE   RELATION   OF   PETER   TO   THIS   GOSPEL. 

Christian  tradition  attributes  this  book  to  Mark,  and  in  the  comparative  obscurity 
of  his  name  in  the  apostolic  history  there  is  a  strong  confirmation  of  its  testimony. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  11 


To  a  man  who  had  played  so  subordinate  a  part  in  the  history,  and  a  part  not  entirely 
creditable,  the  composition  of  a  Gospel  would  not  be  attributed  without  reason.  But 
Christian  tradition  is  equally  uniform  in  asserting  that  the  book  was  composed  under 
some  influence,  less  or  greater,  from  the  apostle  Peter.  This  belief  can  be  traced  back 
to  very  early  times.  Eusebius,  of  the  fourth  century  {Hisi.  EccL,  3,  39),  quotes  from 
Papias,  Bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia,  who  wrote  probably  before  the  middle  of  the 
second  century.  He  quotes,  in  turn,  from  a  certain  John,  whom  he  calls  "  the  presby- 
ter," whom  he  cites  as  having  been  a  discii)le  of  the  Lord,  and  whom  he  apparently 
intends  to  distinguish  from  John  the  apostle.  Much  discussion  has  arisen  about  this 
man,  some  doubting  whether  he  is  to  be  regarded  as  any  other  than  the  apostle  himself. 
(See  the  various  opinions  in  McClintock  and  Strong's  Ci/clojxpdia,  article  "John  the  Pres- 
byter.") The  following  is  the  passage  from  Papias,  as  translated  by  Westcott  {Introduc- 
tion to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  191,  192,  American  edition) :  "  This  also,  then,  was 
the  statement  of  the  elder " — i.  e.  of  the  presbyter :  "  Mark,  having  become  Peter's 
interpreter,  wrote  accurately  all  that  he  (Peter)  mentioned,  though  he  did  not  [record] 
in  order  that  which  was  either  said  or  done  by  Christ.  For  he  neither  heard  the  Lord 
nor  followed  him ;  but  subsequently,  as  I  said,  [attached  himself  to]  Peter,  who  used  to 
frame  his  teachings  to  meet  the  wants  [of  his  hearers],  but  not  as  making  a  continued 
narrative  of  the  Lord's  discourses.  So  Mark  committed  no  error,  as  he  wrote  down 
some  particulars  as  he  narrated  them ;  for  he  took  heed  to  one  thing,  to  omit  nothing 
of  things  he  heard,  and  to  make  no  false  statement  in  [his  account  of]  them." 

Other  early  witnesses  to  the  connection  of  Peter  Avith  this  Gospel  are  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  Irenteus,  Origen,  and  Tertullian.  Justin  Martyr  is  thought  also  to  allude  to 
this  tradition.  In  Clement  the  story  takes  a  different  form  from  that  which  it  bears  in 
Papias.  When  Peter  had  preached  the  word  in  Rome,  many  hearers  of  his  words 
requested  Mark,  as  one  who  had  long  been  with  him  and  remembered  what  he  said,  to 
record  what  he  had  stated.  Mark  did  so,  and  delivered  the  book  to  those  who  had 
asked  for  it,  Peter  neither  hindering  nor  encouraging  him  in  the  work.  Origen  says 
that  "  Mark  made  his  Gospel  as  Peter  guided  him ;"  and  Tertullian,  that  "  the  Gospel 
of  Mark  is  maintained  to  be  Peter's,  whose  interpreter  he  was,  ....  for  it  is  possible 
that  that  which  scholars  publish  should  be  regarded  as  their  master's  work."  The  tra- 
dition naturally  grew  more  definite  as  time  passed,  and  Jerome  said  that  the  Gospel 
was  composed,  "  Peter  narrating  and  Mark  writing."  Irenjcus,  an  early  authority,  hav- 
ing written  late  in  the  second  century,  departs  from  the  general  course  of  the  tradition 
in  representing  that  the  book  was  written  after  the  death  of  Peter  and  Paul. 

Thus  the  ancient  tradition  is  not  constant  or  consistent  in  its  representation  of 
details,  but  it  is  quite  constant  in  asserting  the  relation  of  Peter  with  this  Gospel.  The 
meaning  of  the  word  translated,  "interpreter,"  in  the  passage  from  Papias,  has  been 
much  discussed,  but  the  means  of  obtaining  a  close  definition  of  it  are  wanting.  It 
seems  most  likely  that  Papias  meant  to  say  that  Mark  became  by  this  writing  the  inter- 
preter of  Peter  to  the  church,  the  reproducer  of  Peter's  version  of  the  Master's  life  and 
deeds.  As  for  the  growing  definiteness  of  the  tradition,  and  the  gradual  extension  of 
the  influence  attributed  to  Peter,  that  would  be  the  natural  result  of  the  desire  to  find 
apostolic  authority  for  the  sacred  writings.  On  the  whole,  the  testimony  of  Christian 
antiquity  is  sufficiently  strong  and  clear  to  prepare  us  to  find  in  the  book  itself  the 
evidences  of  influence  from  Peter. 

When  we  come  to  the  internal  evidence,  we  do  not  find  the  tradition  confirmed  in 
its  later  and  more  definite  form.  There  is  no  sufficient  evidence  of  dictation,  or  of  any- 
thing that  is  virtually  equivalent  to  direct  authorship,  on  the  part  of  Peter.  It  has 
been  expected  that  the  references  to  Peter  in  this  Gospel  would  furnish  evidence  that 
his  personal  feeling  had  to  do  with  the  insertion  or  omission  of  matters  that  related  to 


12  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

himself.  But  while  some  passages  are  found  that  seem  favorable  to  this  view,  as  the  notes 
will  show,  still  it  cannot  be  claimed  that  in  the  references  to  Peter,  considered  as  a 
whole,  there  is  anything  decisively  peculiar  or  characteristic.  The  real  evidence  in 
support  of  the  ancient  tradition  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  manifestly 
preserves  the  remembrances  of  an  eye-witness,  and  of  an  eye-witness  whose  relations 
to  Jesus  were  like  those  of  Peter. 

The  evidence  that  this  Gospel  was  enriched  by  the  remembrances  of  an  eye-witness 
will  be  presented  in  detail  in  the  notes,  and  will  be  mentioned  in  general  below  in  the 
paragraph  on  the  characteristics  of  this  Gospel.  It  consists  in  the  many  graphic 
details  that  could  scarcely  have  been  brought  into  the  narrative  at  second-hand.  These 
are  often  touches  of  description,  especially  of  the  acts,  looks,  and  motions  of  our  Lord 
himself.  Again,  they  are  citations  of  names  and  other  details  that  others  omit,  and  of 
the  very  words  in  the  Aramaic  tongue  to  which  our  Lord  gave  utterance.  All  these  are 
signs  that  some  one  had  given  to  Mark,  who  was  not  personally  a  follower  of  Jesus,  the 
results  of  his  own  keen  observation.  The  evidence  of  the  presence  of  an  eye-witness  is 
found  in  the  whole  style  of  the  book  and  on  almost  every  page. 

It  is  almost  equally  plain  that  this  eye-witness  was  some  one  whose  relations  with 
Jesus  resembled  those  of  Peter.  He  was  a  close  companion  of  Jesus  whose  opportu- 
nities of  observation  were  constant.  One  of  the  passages  in  which  the  characteristic 
style  of  an  eye-witness  is  most  apparent  is  the  one  that  contains  the  description  of  the 
Transfiguration,  at  which  there  were  present  with  Jesus  only  Peter,  James,  and  John. 
Another  is  the  narrative  of  the  raising  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  where  no  disciples 
were  present  except  the  same  three.  Moreover,  it  is  a  very  striking  fsict  that  the  peculiarly 
graphic  touches  of  description  that  are  so  abundant  in  the  greater  part  of  the  Gospel 
are  almost  entirely  wanting  after  the  record  of  Peter's  denial  of  his  Master.  That 
record  stands  at  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  chapter.  The  favorite  word  ew/Aeos  does  not 
occur  after  ch.  15  :  1.  The  materials  of  the  story  of  the  Passion,  from  that  point,  are 
much  more  Exclusively  than  before  the  same  that  are  used  by  IMatthew,  and  the  charac- 
teristic peculiarities,  whether  of  substance  or  of  style,  are  far  less  frequent  than  else- 
where. The  proof  of  this  statement  may  be  found  in  the  reading  of  the  narrative  in 
the  Greek.  Advancing  to  that  part  of  the  book  from  the  preceding  part,  and  reading  it 
in  comparison  with  the  other  Gospels,  one  can  scarcely  fail  to  be  impressed  that  the 
keen  eye-witness  is  no  longer  at  his  side — an  impression  that  accords  perfectly  with  the 
belief  that  the  eye-witness  was  Peter,  who  was  at  that  time  separated  in  grief  and  shame 
from  his  IMaster. 

Thus,  although  there  is  no  demonstrative  proof  of  the  connection  of  Peter  with  the 
Gospel  of  Mark,  there  is  a  strong  probable  argument  for  it.  The  tradition  of  the  church 
and  the  traits  of  the  GosjdcI  fit  each  other  like  the  j^arts  of  a  tally. 

EELATION   TO  THE   GOSPELS   OF   MATTHEW   AND   LUKE. 

It  has  been  maintained  that  the  Gospel  of  I\Iark  was  the  original  source  from  which 
Matthew  and  Luke  obtained  much  of  the  material  for  the  compilation  of  their  Gospels, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  is  merely  an  epitome,  made  by  con- 
densation and  recasting,  of  what  they  had  written.  But  the  facts  do  not  correspond  to 
either  theory.  Each  Gospel  contains  abundant  proofs  of  independence,  Mark's  not  less 
than  the  others.  It  is  beyond  question,  however — indeed,  to  say  so  is  to  utter  a  truism 
— that  all  the  evangelists  drew  upon  previously  existing  materials  in  compiling  their 
narratives.  These  materials,  ready  to  their  hand,  were  the  substance  of  the  apostolic 
preaching.  In  the  Gospels — i.  e.  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels — we  have  "  the  story  "  as 
the  Christian  preachers  were  accustomed  to  tell  it.     It  may  already  have  been  written 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  13 

out  in  part :  that  question  has  been  warmly  discussed — whether  the  immediate  sources 
of  our  present  Gospels  were  oral  or  written.  But,  in  whatever  form  it  may  have  existed, 
there  was  a  mass  of  facts  known  about  the  life  of  Jesus  that  was  common  to  all  the 
evangelists  and  to  many  more.  Of  these  facts,  known  to  them  all,  forming  what  has  been 
called  a  "  common  tradition,"  each  evangelist  evidently  made  use  of  such  as  his  purpose 
required,  and  added  to  them  such  other  facts,  known  perhaps  to  himself  and  not  to  all, 
as  he  felt  himself  justified  in  adding.  It  is  plain  that  Mark,  aided  no  doubt  by  the 
remembrance  of  Peter,  possessed  the  facts  of  the  "common  tradition"  in  the  most 
graphic  forms,  and  recorded  them  more  strikingly  than  the  others ;  but  he  added  to 
them  less  than  any  other  evangelist.  There  are  some  indications,  indeed,  that  he  was 
careful  not  to  add  largely  to  them — a  fact  which,  if  established,  would  enhance  the 
historical  credit  of  what  he  did  record.  It  has  been  suggested,  with  much  reason,  that 
this  relation  of  Mark  to  the  "  common  tradition  "  may  have  had  to  do  with  the  abrupt 
ending  of  his  Gospel,  and  explains  the  facts  about  the  last  twelve  verses.  (See  note 
there.) 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  harmonists  of  the  Gospels  usually  follow  almost 
entirely  the  order  of  Mark,  inverting  the  order  of  the  other  evangelists,  and  making 
his  the  basis  of  their  arrangement.  Hence  in  the  exposition  of  this  Gospel  there  is  less 
discussion  of  questions  of  order  than  in  treating  of  the  others. 

CHARACTERISTICS   OF   THIS   GOSPEL. 

In  the  wisdom  of  God  we  are  blessed  with  four  portraitures  of  our  Saviour,  each 
with  a  character  of  its  own.  The  Fourth  Gospel,  it  is  true,  differs  largely  from  the 
others  in  purpose  and  method,  and  even  occupies  a  place  by  itself  in  the  records  of 
divine  revelation ;  and  yet  perhaps  the  Second,  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  is  the  one  that 
bears  its  character  most  unmistakably  upon  the  surface,  and  most  readily  impresses  its 
conception  of  the  Saviour  on  the  reader's  mind.  Scarcely  does  a  more,  thoroughly 
intelligible  and  self-interpreting  piece  of  literature  exist  anywhere  than  the  Gospel  of 
Mark.  Yet  the  clearness  does  not  seem  to  result  mainly  from  high  skill  in  the  author. 
This  is  not  so  much  a  triumph  of  art  as  a  masterpiece  of  nature ;  that  is  to  say,  a 
genuine  and  natural  utterance,  under  divine  guidance,  of  what  a  man  of  clear  sight 
and  jjicturesque  language  knew  about  Jesus.  It  is  a  picture  out  of  real  life,  so  clear 
and  recognizable  because  of  its  reality.  As  we  read  we  do  not  need  to  be  told  how  the 
writer  got  his  vivid  impressions :  we  know  that  they  are  the  genuine  impressions  of 
actual  experience. 

The  Gospel  of  Matthew  portrays  our  Saviour  in  his  relation  to  the  Old  Covenant, 
and  especially  to  the  new  kingdom,  long  promised,  that  was  now  coming  to  take  its 
place.  This  is  the  Gospel  of  the  kingdom.  The  Gospel  of  Luke  represents  him  in  his 
wide  and  tender  human  relations  as  the  blessing  of  mankind.  The  Gospel  of  John 
reveals  him  in  his  divine  glory,  coming  forth  to  the  world,  doing  battle,  by  self-revela- 
tion, with  its  sin  and  darkness,  and  spiritually  glorified  as  the  Son  of  God,  though 
rejected  and  slain  by  men.  The  Gospel  of  Mark  presents  him  to  our  sight  in  the  midst 
of  the  intense  activity  of  the  life  to  which  his  divine  mission  brought  him.  The  order 
of  the  four  as  they  stand  in  our  Bible  is  a  happy  thought  of  the  church.  First  stands 
the  Gospel  of  the  Messiah,  and  of  the  kingdom  that  he  brought  into  the  world.  Then 
comes  the  Gospel  of  the  mighty  Worker,  exhibiting  the  abundant  energy  that  made  his 
life  among  men  great  and  beneficent.  Next  follows  the  Gospel  of  the  Son  of  man, 
overflowing  with  tenderness  and  love  to  the  race  unto  which  he  came.  Then,  to  crown 
the  whole,  comes  the  Gospel  of  the  Son  of  God,  bringing  the  revelation  of  One  who  la 
at  once  the  ancient  glory  of  the  heavens  and  the  sufficient  hope  and  joy  of  the  earth. 


14  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

Coming  to  the  Second  Gospel,  with  which  we  are  concerned,  we  may  note  the  fol- 
lowing as  some  of  its  characteristics :  (1)  It  is  the  briefest  of  them  all.  It  is  so  partly 
because  it  is  the  narrowest  in  its  historical  limits.  It  does  not  touch  upon  the  birth  or 
early  life  of  Jesus,  but  meets  him  at  his  baptism.  It  follows  him  only  through  his  min- 
istry, and,  strictly,  only  through  his  Galila^an  ministry,  passing  over,  like  the  other  Sy- 
noptists,  the  early  ministry  in  Judaea.  It  breaks  off  abruptly  just  after  the  announce- 
ment of  the  resurrection.  It  confines  itself  exactly  within  the  limits  proposed  by  Peter 
in  speaking  of  the  choice  of  a  new  apostle,  and  observed  by  him  in  instructing  the 
household  of  Cornelius  (Acts  1  :  22;  10  :  36-43).  It  has  to  do  solely  with  the  period  of 
our  Saviour's  activity.  (2)  As  between  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus,  the  division  of 
matter  is  very  different  from  that  of  the  other  Gospels.  Mark  records  about  as  many 
miracles  as  Matthew  or  Luke :  they  have  twenty  each,  and  he,  with  his  smaller  space, 
has  nineteen.  But,  while  Matthew  records  fifteen  parables  and  Luke  twenty-three, 
Mark  records  only  four,  one  of  which  has  been  preserved  by  him  alone.  He  does  not 
preserve  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  alludes  in  other  connections  to  but  very  few  of 
the  sayings  that  it  contains.  The  address  at  the  sending  out  of  the  apostles  he  greatly 
abbreviates.  Of  the  great  circle  of  parables  delivered  on  the  last  journey  to  Jerusalem, 
recorded  by  Luke,  he  has  nothing.  Only  in  recounting  the  prophetic  discourse  on  the 
Mount  of  Olives  does  he  approach  to  the  others  in  fulness ;  and  even  here  he  is  the 
briefest  of  the  three.  His  book  is  emphatically  a  book  of  deeds,  not  of  words.  It  is 
the  Gospel  of  action.  It  makes  us  feel  that  when  God  was  manifested  for  us  men  and 
our  salvation  there  was  for  him  no  rest.  An  appropriate  motto  for  the  Gospel  has  been 
said  to  be  the  saying  of  Peter  to  Cornelius  :  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  how  that  God  anointed 
him  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power;  who  went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all 
that  were  oppressed  of  the  devil ;  for  God  was  with  him."  But  in  deeper  truth  his  own 
saying  could  be  taken  for  the  motto  of  this  Gospel :  "  My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him 
that  sent  me,  and  to  accomplish  his  work."  (3)  Although  Mark's  record  is  the  briefest, 
it  is  given  with  a  fulness  and  richness  of  detail  that  imparts  to  it  a  peculiar  value.  He 
scarcely  mentions  any  event  without  adding  something  to  our  knowledge  of  it.  These 
additions  are  made  partly  by  the  particularity  of  his  statements,  and  partly  by  the  pic- 
turesqueness  and  expressiveness  of  his  language.  The  former  fact  bespeaks  the  presence 
of  an  eye-witness — the  latter,  the  fact  that  the  eye-witness  had  a  genius  for  vivid  descrip- 
tion. We  owe  to  Mark,  on  more  than  one  occasion  of  intense  interest,  our  knowledge 
of  the  very  look  and  expression  of  our  Saviour's  face,  of  the  very  words  that  he  uttered 
in  the  Aramaic  tongue,  and  of  the  lifelike  and  instructive  details  in  many  a  picture. 
It  is  impossible  to  tell  which  Gospel  we  could  best  spare.  Many  readers  would  say, 
perhaps,  "  The  short  Gospel  of  Mark ;  that  contains  so  little  matter  that  is  not  pro- 
vided to  us  by  the  others."  Happily,  we  are  not  called  to  choose ;  and  if  we  were,  we 
might  well  be  extremely  sorry  to  part  with  this  fresh,  living,  pictorial  Gospel,  from 
which  we  have  derived  far  more  than  we  are  aware  of  the  distinctness  of  our  conception 
of  our  Saviour.  The  bright,  enlightening  words  that  reveal  our  Master  to  our  hearts 
will  be  pointed  out  in  the  notes  as  we  come  to  them,  and  it  seems  scarcely  necessary  to 
enumerate  any  of  them  here. 


THE 


GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MARK. 


CHAPTER    I. 


THE  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the" 
Son  of  (iod. 
2  As  it  is  written  in  the  prophets,'  Behold,  I  send  my 
messenger  before  thy   face,  which  shall  prepare  thy 
way  before  thee. 


1  The  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  'the 
Son  of  Ciod. 

2  Even  as  it  is  written  -in  Isaiah  the  prophet. 

Behold,  I  send  my  messenger  before  thy  face, 
Who  shall  prepare  thy  way  ; 


aHeb.  1  : 1,  2....&Mal.  3:  1.- 


-1  Some  ancient  autborities  omit  the  Son  of  God. ...2  Some  ancient  authorities  read  in  the  prophet). 


Ch.  1  :  1-8.  MINISTRY  OF  JOHN  THE 
BAPTIST.  Parallels,  Matt.  3  :  1-12 ;  Luke  3  : 1- 
18. — The  earliest  of  the  four  Gospels  begms 
latest  in  the  life  of  our  Lord,  and  concerns  it- 
self e.Kclusively  with  his  public  ministry,  the 
sole  preface  being  a  brief  account  of  the  woric 
of  his  forerunner.  This  is  dite  partly,  perhaps, 
to  the  fact  tliat  it  was  the  earliest — for  the  first 
thought  would  naturally  be  to  gather  up  the 
record  of  his  words  and  deeds  among  men — 
but  probably  more  to  the  fact  that  it  was  com- 
posed far  from  the  land  of  the  Jews,  and  for 
people  who  would  have  little  interest  in  the 
genealogy  of  Jesus,  or  in  anything  bttt  the 
work  by  which  he  had  become  precious  to 
them.  So,  while  John  begins  from  eternity, 
Matthew  from  Abraham,  and  Luke  from  the 
events  that  preceded  the  birth  of  the  forerun- 
ner, Mark  finds  the  forertinner  already  at  work, 
and  introduces  Jesus  at  the  time  of  his  baptism. 
It  is  noticeable,  in  view  of  the  traditional  belief 
that  this  Gospel  was  composed  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Peter,  tliat  its  limitations  of  time  cor- 
respond witli  those  mentioned  by  Peter  in  Acts 
1  :  21,  22,  where  lie  says  that  the  successor  of 
Judas  in  the  apostolate  must  be  one  who  has 
been  with  them  all  the  time,  "  beginning  from 
the  baptism  of  John."  Mark  and  Peter  begin 
from  the  same  point. 

1-4.  Introductiox.  A?.'xouxcemext  of  the 
Gospel. — The  beginning  of  the  gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  The  word 
"gospel  "  is  probably  not  yet  used  of  the  writ- 
ten record,  as  "  the  Gospel  of  Mark."  Rather  is 
it  here  the  good  news  of  the  kingdom,  regarded 
as  proclaimed ;  and  "  the  beginning  of  the  gos- 
pel" means,  in  its  connection  here,  "Thus  be- 
gan the  glad  tidings  of  Jesus  Clirist  to  be  pro- 
claimed, as  the  prophets  foretold :  John  came 
baptizing  in  the  wilderne,«s."  The  gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  gospel,  or  good  news,  con- 
cerning him,  the  gospel  of  whicli  he  is  the  sub- 
stance. Jesus  ("  saviour  ")  is  the  personal  name, 
and  Christ  ("  anointed  ")  is  the  official  title ;  but 
the  two  form  in  Scripture  virtually  a  double 
name,   which    is  not   exactly  represented    by 


"  Jesus  the  Christ."  It  is  a  very  significant  fact 
that  his  religion  has  taken  its  name,  "(,'hris- 
tian,"  from  his  official  title,  and  not  from  his 
personal  name.  In  whatever  way  the  name 
may  first  have  been  given,  it  has  been  recog- 
nized as  true  to  the  facts ;  and  the  Founder  of 
the  faith  has  thtis  been  accepted  as  not  only 
the  Son  of  Mary,  but  the  Messenger  of  God, 
and  his  relation  to  the  eternal  purpose  has  been 
exalted  even  above  his  personality.  If  the  words 
"  the  Son  of  God,"  which  are  omitted  in  some 
manuscripts,  are  genuine,  they  obtain  a  special 
significance  and  interest  from  the  confession  of 
Peter,  "  Thou  art  the  Clirist,  the  Son  of  tlie  liv- 
ing God  "  (Matt.  16  :  16). 

As  it  is  written,  etc.,  is  not  to  be  connected 
grammatically  witli  veree  4  ("As  it  is  written, 
John  did  baptize,  etc."),  but  rather  with  verse  1. 
It  is  an  expansion  of  the  idea  of  the  beginning, 
or  a  statement  of  the  way  in  which  the  begin- 
ning had  been  announced.  Instead  of  in  the 
prophets,  the  best  text  reads  "in  the  prophet 
Isaiah."  There  are  two  quotations  from  the 
prophets  placed  in  one  paragraph,  of  which 
only  the  second  is  from  Isaiah,  the  first  being 
from  Malachi  (Mai. 3:  landisa. 40:3).  The  quota- 
tion from  Isaiah  was  ])erhaps  the  more  prom- 
inent in  the  writer's  mind,  and  in  rapid  style  the 
one  name  is  used  instead  of  two.  Possibly 
when  he  wrote  the  name  he  may  have  intend- 
ed to  make  only  one  quotation,  but  the  other 
may  then  have  flashed  into  liis  mind  as  a  suit- 
able introduction  to  tlie  one  of  which  he  was 
thinking. — Malachi  had  declared  that  before 
the  sudden  coming  of  Jehovah  to  his  temple  he 
would  send  a  messenger  who  should  ])repare  his 
way  before  liim.  In  the  conception  of  the  evan- 
gelist the  j)re(licti(>n  is  addressed  to  the  Me.'^siah 
himself  Before  thy  face,  who  shall  pre- 
pare thy  Avay.  "  Before  thee"  sliould  {irobably 
be  omitted.  The  authority  for  applying  this  pre- 
diction to  John  tlie  Baptist  is  Jesus  himself,  in 
Matt.  11  :  10;  Luke  7  :  27.  The  other  passage 
that  is  cited  here  was  quoted  by  the  Bajitist 
himself  as  descriptive  of  his  office  (John  i :  -ix), 
and  is  definitely  applied  to  him  bv  the  other 

15 


16 


MARK. 


[Ch.  I. 


3  The"  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  Pre- 
pare ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  his  paths  straight. 

4  John'  did  baptize  iu  the  wilderness,  and  preach 
the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission":  of  sins. 


3  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness, 
Make  ye  ready  the  way  of  the  Lord, 
Make  his  paths  straight ; 

4  John  came,  who  baptized  in  the  wilderness   and 
preached  the  baptism  of  repentance  unto  remission 


a  Isa.  40  :  3 b  Matt.  3:1;   Luke  3:3;  John  i:2i c  Acts  22  :  16. 


three  evangelists,  Luke  quoting  it  at  greater 
length  than  the  others.  In  its  original  connec- 
tion it  was  not  as  definite  an  historical  predic- 
tion as  the  one  from  Malachi,  but  beyond  doubt 
the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  prophet  was  looking 
forward  to  the  advent  of  the  Messiah  and  the 
preparation  for  it.  As  an  Oriental  king  sent  his 
herald  before  him,  calling  on  all  to  make  ready 
the  way  for  his  royal  progress  and  to  build  or 
put  in  order  the  roads  through  the  country  that 
he  must  pass,  so  the  coming  of  the  Messiah 
should  be  prepared  by  the  summons  to  spiritual 
readiness.  The  grouping  of  these  two  passages 
makes  a  fine  paragraph  for  the  writer's  puri^ose. 
He  thus  opens  his  book  by  connecting  the  glad 
tidings  with  the  ancient  Scriptures ;  but  the 
destination  of  his  book  to  Gentile  readers  is 
plainly  seen  in  the  fact  that  these  are  the  only 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  that  the 
evangelist  himself  makes  in  the  whole  book, 
chap.  15  :  28  being  omitted  from  the  best  text. 
He  records  citations  by  our  Lord,  but  he  makes 
none  of  his  own. 

Now  comes  the  announcement  of  the  "  be- 
ginning" itself.  John  did  baptize  in  the 
wilderness.  Westcott  and  Ilort's  text  reads 
"  John  the  baptizer  came  {egeneto)  in  the  wil- 
derness ;"  the  definite  article  being  inserted  be- 
fore the  participle,  making  it  virtually  a  proper 
name,  and  almost  equivalent  to  the  "  Baptist." 
Mark  omits  all  preliminary  account  of  John,  as 
he  does  of  Jesus,  and  introduces  him  thus  ab- 
ruptly as  a  well-known  personage.  His  silence 
is  compensated  by  the  remarkable  fulness  of 
Luke's  narrative  concerning  the  birth  of  John 
and  of  Jesus.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  Mark  was  ignorant  of  the  facts  that  he 
omitted.  Throughout  his  book  he  Is  the 
evangelist  of  action,  and  the  omission  of  all 
preliminaries  is  entirely  characteristic. — John 
was.  the  near  kinsman  of  Jesus,  six  months 
his  senior,  whose  office  it  was  (Lukei:i7)  "to 
make  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord." 
This  preliminary  work  he  was  to  accomplish 
by  announcing  the  approach  of  the  Messiah, 
calling  the  people  to  repentance,  and  pledging 
them  through  baptism  to  a  new  and  holy  life. 
Josephus  speaks  of  liim  under  the  name  of 
John  the  Baptist  (Ant.  18.  5.  2),  saying  of  him, 
"  He  was  a  righteous  man,  and  called  the  Jews 
to  be  baptized  and  to  practise  virtue,  exercising 
justice  to  men  and  piety  to  God."    Ablutions 


for  the  purpose  of  purification  were  well  known 
to  the  Jews,  and  the  washing  with  water  had 
long  had  among  them  its  natural  symbolic  sig- 
nificance as  a  sign  of  spiritual  cleansing.  But 
it  had  been  used  by  divine  authority  only  in 
certain  cases  of  ceremdnial  purification,  as  in 
the  consecration  of  priests  (ex.  29 : 4)  and  the 
purification  of  lepers  (Lev.  i4:8).  It  has  been 
claimed  that  such  ablution,  or  immersion,  was 
in  use  before  John  apjaeared,  as  an  initiatory 
act  for  proselytes,  but  the  historical  evidence 
does  not  prove  that  the  custom  was  established 
so  early.  The  baptism  of  John  attached  itself 
to  the  idea  of  purification  by  ablution,  and  was 
popularly  understood  by  the  help  of  that  idea ; 
but  it  was  peculiar  in  being  detached  from  all 
other  ritual  forms,  removed  from  all  special  oc- 
casions in  the  life,  and  enjoined  upon  all  the 
people.  To  all  comers  it  was  proposed  as  an 
act  of  confession  corresponding  to  an  inward 
change  of  mind  and  purpose  respecting  sin.  It 
is  here  described,  as  to  its  meaning,  by  two  ex- 
pressions: (1)  It  was  a  baptism  of  repentance 
— i  e.  it  solemnly  pledged  him  who  received  it 
to  repentance.  Repentance  is  a  deep  change  of 
mind  and  purpose  respecting  sin — a  change  that 
includes  forsaking  as  well  as  regret,  a  change 
that  will  have,  if  genuine,  its  appropriate 
"  fruits."  John  not  only  called  the  people  to 
repentance,  but  gave  them  this  outward  act  in 
which  to  profess  it  and  pledge  themselves  to  the 
corresponding  life.  (2)  It  was  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins — i.  e.  the  obtaining  of  forgive- 
ness for  a  sinful  life  was  the  end  to  which  the 
submission  to  baptism  was  one  of  the  means. 
Not  that  pardon  was  j^romised  or  expected  upon 
submission  to  baptism,  in  itself  regarded ;  but 
this  act,  in  which  repentance  was  confessed  and 
reformation  of  life  was  promised,  was  evidently 
a  suitable  act  for  one  who  wished  to  forsake  his 
sins  and  be  forgiven.  If  a  man  honestly  sought 
full  remission,  it  was  only  right  that  he  should 
perform  this  act :  so  Peter  said  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  (Acts  2  :  38) ;  and  so  it  could  fitly  be 
called  a  baptism  for,  or  with  reference  to,  the 
remission  of  sins. 

Of  the  form  of  the  act  nothing  is  hei-e  said, 
except  by  the  use  of  the  word  baptize  {haptizo). 
In  Grimm's  New  Testament  Lexicon,  after  the 
general  definition  of  the  word  (which  is,  1.  To 
immerse  repeatedly,  to  immerse,  to  submerge; 
2.  To  wash  by  immersing  or  submerging ;    3. 


Ch.  L] 


MARK. 


17 


5  And  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Judrea, 
and  they  of  Jerusalem,  and  were  all  baptized  of  him 
in  the  river  of  Jordan,  confessing"  their  sins. 

6  And  John  was  clothed  with  camel's  hair,  and  with 
a  girdle  of  a  skin  about  his  loins ;  and  he  did  eat  lo- 
custs' and  wild  honey. 


5  of  sins.  And  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  country 
of  Judiea,  and  all  they  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  they  were 
baptized  of  him  in  the  river. Ionian,  coufes.>iug  their 

6 sins.  And  John  was  clothed  with  caniel's  hair,  and 
had  a  leathern  girdle  about   his  loins,  and  did  eat 


Lev.  26  :  40-4'2  ;    Ps.  32:5;  Prov.  28  :  13 ;   1  John  1  :  8 b  Lev.  II  :  22. 


To  overwhelm)  the  following  statement  of  the 
New-Testament  use  is  given :  "  In  the  New 
Testament  it  is  vised  principally  of  the  .solemn 
rite  of  .sacred  washinii;  first  instituted  by  John 
the  Baptist,  afterward  received  at  the  command 
ol"  Clirist  by  the  Christians  and  adapted  to  the 
subject-matter  and  character  of  their  religion — 
i.  e.  immersion  performed  in  water,  in  order 
that  it  might  be  a  sign  of  vices  and  sins  re- 
moved (ahMcmorum),  received  by  those  who,  led 
by  the  desire  of  salvation,  wished  to  be  admitted 
to  the  benefits  of  the  Messianic  kingdom."  It 
formerly  seemed  necessary  to  prove  that  John's 
baptism  was  immersion ;  but  now  no  writer 
touches  the  stibject  without  assuming  that  fact, 
and  one  may  be  jiardoned  for  passing  lightly 
over  the  evidence.  The  time  has  fully  come 
when  the  form  of  John's  baptism  should  no 
longer  need  to  be  discussed. 

In  the  wilderness.  Matthew,  "in  the  wil- 
derness of  Judtea."  No  place  is  more  closely 
specified  as  the  chief  seat  of  John's  labors.  He 
doubtless  baptized  in  several  places,  Init  prob- 
ably the  only  one  that  would  be  found  in  "  the 
wilderness  of  Judtea"  was  at  the  lower  ford  of 
the  Jordan,  or  near  it,  not  far  from  Jericho. 
That  "  wilderness  "  included  the  wild  country 
on  the  west  of  the  Jordan  and  north  of  the 
Dead  Sea.  This  would  be  a  convenient  place 
for  the  multitudes  from  JudiPa  and  Jerusalem 
who  Hocked  to  him.  On  the  place  where  Jesus 
was  baptized,  see  notes  on  verse  9. 

5.  Effect  of  Joiix's  Wop.k. — The  preaching 
of  John  was  the  beginning  of  the  gospel 
as  Mark  proposed  to  tell  of  it,  and  the  result 
was  a  great  popular  movement. — There  went 
ont  to  him  all  tlie  land  of  Judaea,  and 
tliey  of  Jerusalem.  Hyperbolical  language, 
meaning  tliat  men  of  all  classes,  in  great  num- 
bers, went  out  to  him.— Were  baptized— im- 
perfect tense,  "  were  being  ba^itized."  The  verb 
does  not  assert,  as  it  would  in  the  aorist,  that 
all  who  went  out  received  baptism. — Bap- 
tized of  him.  He  was  the  only  adminis- 
trator. He  was  alone  in  his  office,  and  there 
is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  divided  his  work 
with  any.  After  his  death  others  may  have 
taken  up  his  preaching  of  repentance,  not 
knowing  or  not  accepting  Jesus,  and  may  have 
baptized  under  his  name  (Acts  19;  a).  Of  his 
2 


manner  in  immersing,  probably.  Western  prac- 
tice would  give  us  very  little  correct  conception. 
In  Oriental  hands  such  a  rite  would  be  less  for- 
mal and  deliberate  than  with  us. — Baptized 
in  the  river  of  Jordan.  A  definite  statement 
corresponding  exactly  with  the  meaning  of  the 
word  "baptize" — immersed  in  the  river.  Per- 
haps we  have  in  the  word  "river"  one  of  the 
explanations  that  Mark  added  for  the  benefit 
of  Gentile  readers  not  familiar  with  the  local- 
ities of  which  lie  wrote.— Confessing  their 
sins.  A  somewhat  emphatic  expression  in 
the  Greek,  which  ayjparently  refers  to  some- 
thing more  than  an  indeterminate  "  Peccavi" — 
"  /  have  sinned."  John  was  thoroughly  prac- 
tical, and  probably  he  drew  out  from  those 
who  came  to  him  a  practical  confession.  Yet 
not  all  who  came  confessed  and  were  baptized : 
some  refused,  and  some  were  refused.  Not  all 
who  were  baptized  were  truly  penitent ;  but 
the  approved  disciples  of  John,  as  a  class,  were 
truly  penitent  men  before  they  left  him  to  fol- 
low the  greater  Master.  The  effect  of  his  teach- 
ing is  seen  in  the  readiness  with  which  some 
of  his  disciples  turned  from  him  to  Jesus.  (See 
John  1  :  35-51,  but  not  Matt.  4  :  18-22.  See 
notes  below.)  When  baptism  was  first  pro- 
claimed, there  was  no  one  to  question  that  it 
must  be  an  intelligent  and  deliberate  act.  To 
propose  the  baptism  of  unconscious  human  be- 
ings, or  of  one  person  in  view  of  another's  re- 
pentance, would  have  been  too  plain  a  contra- 
diction of  the  whole  spirit  and  aim  of  John's 
mission.  Yet  surely  his  mission  was  not  more 
distinctly  spiritual  than  that  of  his  Master. 

6.  Description  of  John's  ^Iaxner  of  Life. 
—Clothed  AVith  camel's  hair,  of  which  a 
coarse,  rough  cloth  was  made.  The  garment 
was  probably  the  burnouse,  or  mantle,  which 
the  Bedouins  still  wear ;  and  the  leathern  gir- 
dle was  such  as  the  poor  use  to  this  day.  His 
figure  reminds  one  of  the  prophet  in  whose 
"spirit  and  power"  John  had  come,  and  they 
are  probalily  right  who  suj^ijose  that  John  in- 
tentionally assumed  the  appearance  and  habits 
of  Elijah  (2  Kings  1 : 8),  in  which  some  of  the  later 
prophets  also  had  resembled  him — at  least,  as 
to  the  texture  of  garments  (Zech.  i3 :  <).- His  food 
was  locusts  and  wild  honey.  Locusts, 
which  are  verv  abundant  in  that  land,  were 


18 


MARK. 


[Ch.  I. 


7  And  preached,  saving,  There" coiueth  one  mightier 
than  I  after  nie,  the  hitchet  of  whose  shoes  I  am  not 
worthy  to  stoop  down  and  unloose. 


7  locusts  and  wild  honey.  And  he  preached,  saying, 
There  cometh  after  me  he  that  is  mightier  than  1, 
the  latehet  of  whose  shoes  I  am  not  'worthy  to  stoop 


Matt.  3  :  n  ;  John  1  :  27  ;  Acts  13  :  25.- 


-1  Gr.  svfficient. 


"  clean "  according  to  tlie  law  of  Moses  (i.ev. 
11 :22),  and  formed,  as  they  still  do  form,  a  part 
of  the  food  of  the  poor,  although  it  is  said  that 
at  ))resent  they  are  somewhat  despised,  as  the 
food  of  the  very  poorest.  Some  travellers  have 
affirmed  that  they  found  them  palatable  when 
cooked  as  the  people  cook  them — oftenest  by 
boiling.  Wild  honey  was  also  abundant,  de- 
posited sometimes  in  trees,  as  at  1  Sam.  14  :  25, 
and  sometimes  in  crevices  of  the  rocks  (Deut. 
32:13;  ps. 81 :  16).  Tlicsc  fcw  details,  givcii  ill  al- 
most identical  words  by  Matthew  and  Mark, 


make  np  almost  the  whole  of  our  picture  of 
the  personal  life  of  John  ;  yet  our  picture  is 
very  distinct  and  lifelike.  It  includes  the  main 
points  in  tlie  living  of  an  ascetic — a  home  in 
the  wilderness ;  no  need  of  helps  or  appliances, 
or  provision  from  beyond  his  immediate  local- 
ity ;  no  dependence  on  men ;  rough  clothing, 
such  as  the  sternest  of  the  pi'ophets  had  worn, 
and  such  as  men  have  often  worn  for  the  sake 
of  doing  penance ;  and  such  food  as  nature 
offered  to  a  hermit.  This  was  no  new  way  of 
life  to  John  when  his  ministry  began.  His 
aged  parents  probably  died  while  he  was  still 
young,  and  he  "  was  in  the  deserts  "  (Luke  i :  bo), 
most  likely  in  some  such  life  as  this,  from  his 
youth  to  his  ministry.  Many  of  his  hearers 
mav  have  brought  their  luxuries,  or  at  least 


their  comforts,  with  them   to  his  preaching; 
but  John  was  still  the  ascetic. 

7,  8.  John's  Preaching. — Mark's  report  is 
only  a  fragment,  but  a  fragment  that  is  per- 
fectly characteristic  of  him  and  of  his  Gospel. 
This  is  the  Gospel  of  action.  The  messenger 
before  the  Messiah  has  come,  and  now  he  is 
portrayed  solely  in  the  act  of  announcing  the 
One  who  is  to  come  after  him.  The  call  to  re- 
pentance is  omitted,  as  already  implied,  and  only 
the  proclamation  is  given.  There  cometh  one 
mightier  than  I  after  me,  or"  behind  me" — 
not  merely  "one,"  but  the  one 
"mightier  than  I,"  for  the 
definite  article  j)oints  out  a 
definite  individual.  It  is  the 
^  superior  sjnritual   power  of 

the  Messiah  that  is  hero  joy- 
fully announced  l)y  the  fore- 
runner. John  may  have  felt 
with  pain  his  own  inability 
to  change  the  heart,  and  even 
so  to  read  the  heart  as  to 
avoid  being  deceived  by  men  • 
and  so  he  may  have  loved  to 
think  of  the  Messiah  as  the 
mightier  One  by  whom  the 
things  impossible  to  him 
should  be  done. — Before  one 
so  much  mightier  John  takes 
the  humblest  position.  The 
latehet  of  whose  shoes  I 
am  not  worthy  to  stoop 
down  and  unloose.  The 
latehet  was  the  thong  or 
strap  by  which  the  sandal  was  bound  upon  the 
foot ;  and,  as  it  was  the  office  of  a  servant  to  bear 
the  shoes  (Mattliew),  so  it  was  perhaps  a  still 
humbler  duty  of  his  to  loosen  them  from  the 
Master's  feet.  I  am  not  worthy,  says  John— 
"  I  am  not  hikanos — suitable,  a  fit  person— to  do 
for  him  even  this  most  menial  .service."  This 
is  not  to  be  taken  as  a  bold  figure  of  speech  on 
John's  part,  going  perhaps  beyond  his  feeling. 
It  was  an  honest  utterance  of  humility,  from  one 
of  the  most  humble  men  that  ever  lived.  This 
was  his  sincere  opinion  of  the  difference  between 
liimself  and  the  Messiah  whom  he  had  not  seen. 
Verse  8  illustrates  that  surpa.ssing  spiritual 
power  of  the  Messiah  before  which  John  stands 
in  reverence.  The  means  of  illustrating  it  John 
finds  in  his  own  baptism.^I  have  baptized 


Ch.  I.] 


MARK. 


19 


8  I  indeed  have  baptized  you  with  water:  but  he 
shall  baptize"  you  with  the  Holy  iihost. 

y  And  it  came  to  i)a.ss  in  those  days,  that  Jesus  came 
from  Nazareth  of  Cialilee,  and  was  baptized'  of  john  in 
Jordan. 


8  down  and  unloose.     I  baptized  you  'in  water;  but 
he  shall  baptize  you  Mn  the  Holy  Spirit. 

9  And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days,  that.lesus  came 
from  Nazareth  of  tialilee,  and  was  baptized  of  John 


a  JoPl  2:  28;  Acts  1  :  5;  2  :  4 ;  10  :  45;  U  :  15,  16;  1  Cur.  12  :  13 b  Matt.  3  :  1»  ;  Luke:):  21. 


you  with  water.  Advist,  not  perfect.  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,  "I  baptize  you,"  present  tense. 
Mark  conceives  of  Jolin  as  addressing  those 
whom  lie  lias  already  baptized. — But  he  shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  bap- 
tism, ailniinistered  by  John,  is  an  overwhelm- 
ing in  water,  so  shall  that  which  the  Messiah 
imparts  be  an  overwhelming  in  holy,  spiritual 
intltiences.  He  shall  merge  and  whelm  men  as 
John  has  done,  and  that,  too,  in  a  cleansing 
element ;  but  not  in  water.  Mightier  is  he, 
and  mightier  cleansing  infltiences  attend  him. 
He  shall  do  by  the  Holy  Spirit  that  actual  work 
of  renewal  and  pitritication  of  which  the  bap- 
tism of  John  has  been  only  the  symbol.  "  His 
work  shall  stirpass  mine,"  says  John,  "  as  far  as 
the  Holy  Spirit  suri)asses  water  in  actual  power 
to  purify."  This  is  to  predict  for  the  Messiah  a 
real  work,  an  actual  whelming  of  men  in  the 
life-giving,  holy  influences  of  the  Divine  Spirit. 
The  fulfilment  of  this  prediction  is  not  to  be 
found  in  any  gift  or  gifts  peculiar  to  the  apos- 
tles :  the  language  of  the  passage  forbids  that, 
as  well  as  the  sense  of  the  prediction.  The  ob- 
ject of  the  verb  in  both  clauses  is  the  indefinite 
"  yoti  " — "  I  baptized  you,  he  will  baptize  you  " 
— and  the  natural  reference  is  to  all  who  re- 
ceive his  influences.  This  is  a  general  descrip- 
tion of  the  s{)iritual  work  of  Christ.  Tlie  bap- 
tizing in  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  any  single  act  or 
event  in  the  history  of  Christ's  kingdom ;  the 
figure  is  a  noble  characterization  of  the  qttality 
and  power  of  his  work.  It  was  illitstrated  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  in  the  miraculous 
gifts  of  the  apostolic  age  (Acts  11  :  16,  where 
Peter  recognized  an  illustration  of  it),  and  in 
the  graces  that  were  better  than  miractilous 
gifts  (i  Cor.  13).  It  is  illtistrated  still  whenever 
Christ  through  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  new 
creatitres  of  men  and  sanctifies  his  people. 
Christ  is  still,  as  "John  the  baptizer"  called 
him  (John  1  :  .33),  "  the  baptizer  in  the  Holy 
Spirit"  {ho  hnptizbn  en  pn.  hag.).  Lukc(3:i6) 
omits  ea  before  hudati  and  reads,  "  I  bap- 
tize you  with  water,"  instead  of  "  in  water," 
the  dative  being  the  instrumental  dative.  On 
this  dilference  Winer  remarks  (Grammar  of 
the  N.  T.,  Thayer's  edition,  p.  412) :  "  Some- 
times we  find  in  parallel  passages  a  preposition 
now  inserted  and  now  omitted.  This  difference 
of  phraseology  does  not  affect  the  sense,  but 
each  form  of  expression  rose  from  a  different 


conception.  Baptizon  en  hudati  signifies,  '  bap- 
tize in  water'  (immersing);  baptizein  hudati, 
'  baptize  with  water.'  Here  the  identity  of  the 
two  expressions  in  sense  is  manifest;  j'et  we 
must  not  consider  one  as  put  for  the  other." 
Observe,  however,  that,  witli  jmeumnti,  en  is 
always  used  :  it  is  always  "  baptize  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,"  never  "  with."  Mark  omits  the  bap- 
tism in  fire  by  which  in  Matthew  and  Luke 
the  Baptist  completes  the  representation  of  the 
superior  might  of  the  jVIessiah. 

9-11.  THE  BAPTISM  OF  JESLTS.  PnraUels, 
Matt.  3  :  13-17  ;  Luke  3  :  21,  22.— :\Iatthew  alone 
tells  of  the  hesitation  of  the  Baptist;  otherwise, 
the  three  reports  differ  but  very  slightly. 

9.  In  those  days.  The  time  is  indefinite, 
nor  is  it  plainly  identified  in  the  other  records. 
The  place  of  the  baptism  is  indicated  by  John 
1  :  28,  which  saj'^s  John  was  at  that  time  bap- 
tizing at  "Bethabara" — or  by  the  best  text 
Bethania,  "  beyond  Jordan."  The  Palestine 
Exploration  Fund  identifies  this  as  one  of  the 
upper  fords  of  the  Jordan,  still  known  as  'Ab- 
arah,  within  a  day's  journey  of  the  early  home 
of  Jestts.  It  is  thought  that  Bethania  is  meant 
for  Batanea,  a  name  given  to  the  district  on  the 
east  of  the  river. — Jesus  came.  Thus  informal- 
ly does  Mark  introdttce  to  his  story  the  One  but 
for  whom  it  wotild  never  have  been  written.  He 
writes  for  those  who  already  know  him  ;  but  so 
do  those  who  prepare  more  elaljorately  for  his 
entrance  to  their  story.  Mark  is  pressing  for- 
ward to  the  story  of  action. — From  Nazareth 
of  Galilee.  His  qtiiet  home  for  nearly  thirty 
years.  The  impression  made  by  the  record  is 
that  he  came  alone,  not  in  a  caravan  of  comers, 
and  directly  from  his  own  abode.  The  moment 
of  his  withdrawal  from  the  long  retirement  was 
determined  in  his  own  heart,  which  was  guided, 
no  dotibt,  partly  by  what  he  heard  of  the  work 
of  the  Baptist.  In  the  great  movement  of  god- 
ly reformation,  when  the  i)eoplc  were  awakened 
somewhat  to  holy  things,  he  was  drawn  to  go 
out  and  cast  in  his  lot  and  life  with  the  work, 
and  so  to  take  his  apj>ointed  jilace.  There  is 
no  wrong  in  thus  recognizing  the  influence  of 
the  movement  in  calling  him  out.  But  why 
was  he  baptized?  Not  with  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance for  tlie  remission  of  sins,  but  with  the 
baptism  of  consecration  to  the  work  that  lay 
before  him.  He  was  a  man  and  was  living 
under  the  limitations,  of  humanity,   and  he 


20 


MARK. 


[Ch.  I. 


10  And  straightway  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  j  10  Mn  the  Jordan.  And  straightway  coming  up  out  of 
he  saw  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Spirit,"  like  a  dove,  the  water,  he  saw  the  heavens  rent  asunder,  and  the 
descending  upon  him  :  | 

a  Isa.  42  :  1  ;  John  1 :  32. 1  Gr.  into. 


would  not  fail  to  "fulfil  all  righteousness" — 
i.  e.  to  do  all  that  a  man  ought  who  was  going 
forth  to  a  great  work  for  God  and  his  kingdom. 
He  was  "  made  like  unto  his  brethren  "  (Heb.  2 :  n), 
and  tlie  step  that  was  suitable  to  a  man  was  suit- 
able to  him — not  arbitrarily,  but  because  what 
had  a  meaning  to  a  man  had  a  meaning  to  him. 
As  men  could  consecrate  themselves  to  a  holy 
life  and  work  in  baptism,  so  could  he ;  and  so 
he  did,  pledging  liimself  to  the  higher  activity 
of  that  Messianic  life  on  which  he  was  only 
then   entering.     Moreover,  as   men  may  seek 
strength  for  work  that  is  before  them  by  "ful- 
filling all   righteousness" — /.  e.  by  obediently 
submitting  to  the  ordinances  of  God — so  could 
he;  and  so  he  did,  taking  this  as  one  step  in 
the  way  by  which  he  was  to  be  "  made  perfect " 
as  the  "Captain  of  salvation."     The  difficulties 
that  have  been  suggested  by  the  fact  that  he 
submitted  to  baptism  are  due,  in  great  measure, 
to  the  instinctive  but  erroneous  and  unscrip- 
tural   impression   that   the  Son   of  God  must 
have  been  separated   in   some   way  from   the 
common  lot  of  humanity.     On  the  contrary, 
he  was  perfectly  identified  with  the  common 
lot  of  humanity  ;  and  that  fact,  when  we  learn  to 
understand  it,  will  tend  to  make  his  life  at  once 
far  more  intelligible  and  far  more  adorable — more 
truly  liuman  and  more  gloriously  divine. — Jesus 
came,  and  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan. 
Literally,  not  "in,"  as  in  verse  5,  but  "into" 
(eis) — a  phrase  that  is  as  suitable  as  the  other 
to  the  meaning  of  baptizo.      It  is  the  very  act 
of  immersion  into  the  river  that  is  represented. 
10.  The  Visible  Sign  of  Acceptance. — Here 
first  we  meet  with  Mark's  characteristic  word, 
euthits,  which,  with  its  cognate  euthcos,  he  uses  a 
little  more  than  forty  times,  the  wonls  being 
variously   translated    "immediately,"    "forth- 
with," "straightway,"  in  the  English  version. 
Coming  up  out  of  the  water,  after  the  bap- 
tism.   The  best  text  has  ck,  "  (jut  of,"  instead  of 
apo,  "from." — He  saw — i.e.  Jesus.     John  also 
saw  the  vision  (John  1 :32-.'!4),  but  there  is  every 
reason  to  believe  that  no  others  saw  it. — The 
heavens   opened,    or,   rather,    "rent  open." 
The  same  word  as  in  Matt.  27  :  51 :  "  The  rocks 
were  rent."     It  is  a  present  participle  here,  in- 
dicating tliat  he  saw  the  very  process  of  open- 
ing.   Matthew  and  Luke  use  the  common  word 
for  "  ojtened,"  and  so  the  strong,  graphic  word 
is  peculiar  to  Mark.     Luke  says  that  he  was 
praying.      Exactly    what    is    meant  by    "  the 


heavens  rent  asunder"  who  can  tell?  We  are 
reminded  of  Stephen's  vision  (acist  :55, .%)  and 
of  the  longing  of  the  prophet  (isa. 6+:i):  "Oh 
that  thou  wouldest  rend  the  heavens,  that  thou 
wouldest  come  d<jwn !"  — Whether  the  Son  of  God 
saw  any  vision  in  the  opened  heavens  we  can- 
not know  ;  but  from  the  opened  heavens  he  saw 
the  Spirit,  like  a  dove,  descending  upon 
him.  Mark  and  the  Baptist  liimself  (John  1 :  32J  say 
"  the  Spirit ;"  Luke,  "  the  Holy  Spirit ;"  Matthew, 
"  the  Spirit  of  God."— Like  a  dove— i.  e.  in  a 
dovelike  form,  and  not  merely,  as  some  have 
understood  it,  with  a  dovelike  motion,  as  a  dove 
descends.  The  Baptist  adds,  "And  it  abode  upon 
him."  The  descent  of  the  dovelike  form  was  of 
course  symbolic — a  visible  picture  of  an  unseen 
spiz'itual  reality.  If  this  unquestionable  state- 
ment is  admitted,  it  follows  at  once  that  there 
was  then  granted  to  the  God-man  some  fresh 
impartation  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  The  whole 
subject  is  in  the  realm  of  mystery,  and  must 
remain  there;  and  yet  the  recognition  of  the 
human  limitations  in  the  life  of  Jesus  may 
contribute  something  to  the  understanding  of 
it.  It  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  man  to  con- 
vince concerning  sin,  and  concerning  righteous- 
ness, and  concerning  judgment — i.  e.  to  awaken 
great  and  controlling  convictions  concerning 
moral  evil  and  moral  good,  and  the  discrim- 
ination that  is  made  between  them  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  God.  These  were  the  convictions, 
residing  in  the  divine  mind,  out  of  which  came 
the  counsel  of  redemption.  It  was  necessary 
that  the  mind  of  Jesus,  so  far  as  it  was  human, 
should  be  brought  into  perfect  accord  with  these 
convictions  of  the  divine  mind  ;  and  so  we  can 
see  how  tliere  was  reason  that  the  Spirit  should 
be  given  to  him — "  not  by  measure"  (john3:34), 
but  in  unlimited  fulness.  It  is  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  in  man,  also,  to  inspire  the  sense  of  son- 
ship    (Fom.  8:  16;  Gal.  4.6)    aud    tllC   Spirit    of    filial 

prayer  (Rom.  8 :  2B,  27) ;  and  plainly  it  was  possible 
and  desirable  for  the  human  spirit  of  Jesus  to 
be  raised  to  the  divine  standard  in  these  respects. 
If  the  language  of  Gal.  4  :  G  is  true  of  us,  "  Be- 
cause ye  are  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit 
of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba, 
Father" — if  the  Spirit  that  constrains  to  the 
filial  cry  is  sent  to  us  "because  we  are  sons" — 
was  there  not  still  greater  reason  why  the  hu- 
man spirit  of  Jesus  should  be  visited  by  the 
same  Spirit  of  filial  love?  He  "was  a  son," 
and  needed  the  perfect  sense  of  sonsliip.     Just 


Ch.  L] 


MARK. 


21 


11  And  there  came  a  voice  from  heaven,  mying.  Thou 
art  my  beloved  Son,"  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased. 

12  And  immediately  the  Spirit  driveth  him  into  the 
wilderness. 


11  Spirit  as  a  dove  descending  upon  him :  and  a  voice 
came  out  of  the  heavens,  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son, 
in  thee  1  am  well  |)leased. 

12  And  straightway  the  Spirit  driveth  him  forth  into 


now  he  was  at  the  threshold  of  liis  great  work, 
and  this  was  the  moment  when  he  most  needed 
whatever  endowments  were  to  come  upon  him 
from  above.  Here  alone  is  the  Holy  Spirit  rep- 
reSL'nted  hy  a  dove.  The  symbolic  meaning 
has  been  variously  interjjreted ;  perhaps  it  was 
not  meant  to  be  minutely  ttnderstood.  The 
thought  may  be  that  the  Divine  Spirit  is  a  Spirit 
of  gentleness,  or  that  the  Father  looks  tenderly 
upon  the  Son  who  does  always  the  tilings  that 
please  liini  and  sweetly  sends  upon  men  his 
helpful  influence,  but,  besides  all  the  meaning 
of  the  event  for  Jesus  himself,  it  was  intended 
as  a  sign  whereby  John  should  identify  the  Mes- 
siah (jnhul  :32-;u). 

11.  The  Audible  Sigx  of  Acceptance. — A 
voice  from  heaven,  Thou  art  my  beloved 
Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased.  Literal- 
ly, "  I  delighted."— Thou  art.  So  Mark  and 
Luke;  Matthew,  "This  is." — In  whom.  For 
this  the  best  text  reads  '"  in  thee." — I  delighted. 
Aorist,  not  present ;  so  in  all  three.  Jesus  heard 
the  voice ;  John  certainly  did  not  hear  it.  The 
descent  of  the  dove  had  been  given  him  before- 
hand as  a  sign,  and  he  recognized  it  and  used 
it  for  evidence.  If  he  had  heard  the  voice,  it 
is  very  strange  that  he  mentioned  the  dove  and 
omitted  to  mention  this,  which  would  have 
served  his  purpose  of  identifying  the  Messiah 
still  better.  There  is  no  proof  that  the  voice 
was  ever  appealed  to  as  evidence  or  was  meant 
for  evidential  use.  The  voice  seems  to  have 
been  meant  for  Jesus  only,  and  to  have  been 
heard  by  him  alone.  It  was  probably  intended 
as  a  sign  of  acceptance  to  Jesus  himself.  Ac- 
cordingly, it  is  "Thou  art"  rather  than  "This 
is"  my  beloved  Son.  The  utterance  at  the 
transfiguration,  plainly  evidential  in  its  pur- 
pose, was,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son."  At  the 
baptism  the  public  work  was  at  hand,  and  the 
new  impartation  of  the  Spirit  had  come ;  and 
the  moment  was  a  fitting  one  for  a  cheering 
word.  As  for  the  force  of  the  communication, 
the  English  version  obscures  it  by  rendering 
eudokesa  like  a  present,  when  it  is  an  aorist : 
"Thou  art  my  beloved  Son;  in  thee  I  delight- 
ed." When?  See  John  17  :  24  :  "  Thou  lovedst 
me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  The 
voice  from  heaven  at  the  beginning  of  the 
ministry  is  the  counterpart  of  this  claim  in 
the  prayer  at  the  end.  At  this  important  hour 
the  feather  assures  Jesus  anew  of  his  identity 


with  the  pre-existcnt  Logos,  in  whom  God 
from  eternity  delighted.  The  ministry  would 
be  full  of  trials,  and  the  quickly-impending 
temptation  might  suggest  doubts  of  his  own 
identity  with  the  Holy  One  of  God.  By  this 
utterance  the  identification  was  completed  for 
the  consciousness  of  Jesus,  and  there  is  no 
reason  to  suspect  that  any  doubt  of  it  ever 
crossed  his  nund  in  any  of  the  trials  of  his  life 
or  the  agonies  of  his  death.  Of  course,  the 
whole  subject  of  our  Lord's  consciousness  must 
remain  mysterious  to  us;  but  this  view  rests 
upon  the  fact  that  he  was  subject  to  the  lim- 
itations of  human  growth,  and  that  there  was  a 
progress  in  his  consciousness  of  what  he  was, 
which  progress  was  crowned  by  the  full  con- 
viction that  he  now  received.  What  he  learned 
thereafter  was  (Heb.  5:8)  how  to  live  and  die  as 
God's  beloved  Son  in  the  purpose  of  working 
out  salvation  for  men. 

12,  13.  THE  TEMPTATION  OF  JESUS. 
Pnmikh,  Matt.  4  :  1-11;  Luke  4  :  1-13.— Mark's 
report  is  the  merest  outline,  barely  ser\nng  to 
put  the  temptation  in  its  jiroper  place  in  the  his- 
tory. The  evangelist  of  action  presses  on  to  the 
public  ministry,  merely  outlining  what  precedes. 
But  he  cannot  draw  an  outline  that  is  not  life- 
like, and  this  swift  sketch  is  a  graphic  one. 
Immediately  is  to  be  taken  literally:  the 
next  event  after  the  baptism  is  the  temj)tation, 
and  after  John  had  baptized  Jesus  be  saw  him 
no  more  till  after  the  forty  days. — The  Spirit 
driveth  him,  or  thrusts,  or  urges,  him  out. 
Matthew  and  Luke  say,  with  a  milder  word, 
that  he  was  "  led  "  by  the  Spirit.  (Same  as  in 
Rom.  8  :  15.)  Mark's  word  tells  of  a  strong 
irresistible  impulse;  doubtless  such  an  impulse 
as  he  had  never  felt  before,  for  the  Spirit  was 
already  doing  new  work  in  him.  Mark  does 
not  say  that  he  was  urged  forth  "  to  be  tempt- 
ed," but  only  that  he  was  urged  forth  to  the 
wilderness.  Neither  does  Luke,  and  Matthew's 
language  does  not  declare  that  he  went  intend- 
ing or  expecting  to  meet  temptation.  From 
Mark  we  should  infer  that  he  went  out  to  be 
alone,  desiring  solitude  for  his  own  sake.  The 
place  is  undetermined,  but  was  probably  some- 
where in  the  wilderness  of  Judaea. — If  Mark's 
account  had  been  intended  for  a  full  statement, 
it  nught  perhaps  seem  to  be  in  conflict  with 
the  fuller  record  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  for  it 
reads  as  if  the  temptation  continued  through 


22 


MAEK. 


[Ch.  I. 


13  And"  he  was  there  in  the  wilderness  forty  days, 
teiupted  of  Satan  ;  and  was  with  the  wild  beasts ;  and 
the  angels  ministered  unto  him. 

14  isow  after  that  John  was  put  in  prison,  Jesus' 


13  the  wilderness.  And  he  was  in  the  wilderness  forty 
days  tempted  of  Satan;  and  he  was  with  the  wild 
beasts;  and  the  angels  ministered  unto  him. 

14  Now  after  that  John  was  delivered  up,  Jesus  came 


aMatt.4:l;  Lukel:  1,  etc i  Matt.  4  :  23. 


the  forty  days  ;  but  if  it  is  taken  as  a  concise 
statement  that  does  not  attempt  details,  we 
need  feel  no  difficulty. — Even  in  this  brief  out- 
line there  is  one  fresh  detail  not  given  else- 
where. And  was  Avith  the  wild  beasts. 
No  descripti(jn  could  more  vividly  set  forth  his 
deep  retirement  and  his  utter  seclusion  from 
men.  Of  the  wild  beasts  Plumptre  says :  "  In 
our  Lord's  time  these  might  include  the  pan- 
ther, the  bear,  the  wolf,  the  hyena,  possibly  the 
lion  and  the  serpent."  It  is  a  wonder  that  this 
scene  has  not  been  seized  upon  in  apocryphal 
Gospels  as  the  foundation  for  stories  about  the 
power  of  our  Lord's  purity  and  gentleness  in 
restraining  and  subduing  the  wild  animals. — 
And  the  angels  ministered  unto  him. 
After  the  conflict,  as  we  learn  from  Matthew. 
In  this  brief  record  the  great  conflict  is  not 
detailed,  but  we  have  the  scene,  the  deepest 
wilderness ;  the  contestants,  Jesus  and  Satan ; 
the  only  spectators,  the  wild  beasts ;  the  help- 
ers of  the  victorious  Christ,  the  angels.  The 
absence  of  men  is  far  more  strongly  empha- 
sized than  in  the  other  records.  Observe  that 
the  narrative  of  the  temptation  must  have 
come  to  the  evangelists  from  the  Lord  himself 
When  he  was  tempted  he  had  no  disciple  to 
"  tarry  and  watch  "  with  him  (Matt.  26:38).  The 
proposals  of  Satan  as  to  the  way  to  found  a 
kingdom  were  repelled  when  no  soul  of  man 
had  believed  on  him.  Faith  and  righteousness 
had  to  be  their  own  witnesses  to  his  soul. 

The  discussion  of  the  temptation  does  not 
belong  in  this  volume.  It  may  not  be  amiss  to 
say,  however,  that  such  thoughts  as  would 
throng  upon  the  Christ  at  this  point  in  his 
career  Avould  be  the  very  ones  for  the  tempter 
to  seize  upon  if  he  wished  to  destroy  the  virtue 
of  the  Son  of  God.  This  is  the  moment  of  his 
life  at  which  there  is  the  greatest  natural  fit- 
ness in  such  a  transaction.  The  place  of  the 
story,  therefore,  is  one  of  the  facts  that  com- 
mend it  to  us  as  a  true  part  of  the  biography 
of  Jesiis. 

14,  15.  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MIN- 
ISTRY OF  JESUS  IN  GALILEE.  Parallels, 
Matt.  4  :  12-17 ;  Luke  4  :  14,  15 ;  John  4  :  1-3, 
43-45. — The  return  to  Galilee  here  mentioned 
is  not  the  first  return,  which  occurred  not  long 
after  the  temptation.  Mark,  with  tlie  other 
syno]>tists,  omits  all  reference  to  the  first  visit 
to  Galilee  and  the  early  Juda;an  ministry,  and 


resumes  the  story  at  the  time  of  the  imprison- 
ment of  the  Baptist.  The  events  here  passed 
over  are  narrated  in  John  1  :  19-4  :  42.  They 
may  be  summarized  thus :  After  the  temptation 
Jesus  returns  to  John,  who  publicly  bears  wit- 
ness to  him  as  the  Lamb  of  God ;  several  di.sci- 
ples  of  John  attach  themselves  to  Jesus,  who, 
accompanied  by  them,  goes  to  Galilee,  attends 
the  wedding  at  Cana,  where  the  first  miracle  is 
wrought,  and  spends  a  few  days  at  Caper- 
naum ;  at  the  time  of  the  passover  he  returns 
to  Jerusalem,  purifies  the  temple,  performs 
miracles,  and  is  visited  by  Nicodemus ;  he 
leaves  Jerusalem  for  some  other  part  of  Juda*a, 
where  he  baptizes,  by  the  hands  of  his  disci- 
ples, many  who  believe  on  him  ;  John,  who  is 
still  baptizing,  again  bears  testimony  to  him 
as  the  One  at  whose  coming  he  is  glad  to  re- 
tire ;  now  John  is  thrown  into  prison  (an 
event  that  is  nowhere  recorded  in  its  own 
order,  but  comes  in  only  by  allusion,  men- 
tioned by  Luke  in  anticipation,  and  by  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  as  a  reminiscence),  and  Jesus, 
his  fame  still  spreading,  leaves  Juda?a  and  re- 
turns to  Galilee,  as  recorded  in  verse  14 ;  on 
the  way  he  passes  through  Samaria,  meets  the 
Samaritan  woman  at  the  well,  and  spends  two 
days  among  her  neighbors ;  after  which  he 
comes  "in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  into  Gal- 
ilee" (Luke)  and  preaches,  as  Mark  proceeds  to 
tell.  John,  who  reports  so  fully  the  preceding 
period,  including  the  Juda^an  ministry  and  the 
northward  journey,  is  brief  in  his  account  of 
this  ministry  in  Galilee,  telling  only  of  the 
welcome  that  Jesus  received,  of  his  visit  to 
Cana,  and  of  the  healing  of  the  nobleman's 
son.  This  naiTative  is  i)eculiar  to  John  ;  pecu- 
liar to  Luke  is  the  report  of  our  Lord's  visit  to 
Nazareth  and  preaching  in  the  synagogue  there, 
only  to  be  rejected ;  then  follows  a  group  of 
events  in  Galilee,  recorded  by  all  the  synop- 
tists,  the  record  extending  in  iSIark  from  chaii. 
1  :  14  to  2  :  22.  From  the  synoptists  we  sliould 
never  suspeirt  that  there  had  been  an  early 
Judjean  ministry  ;  while  from  John  we  should 
never  have  learned  tlie  extent  of  this  niinistrj'' 
in  Galilee. 

14.  For  the  imprisonment  of  John  see  chap. 
6  :  17  and  notes  there.  The  word  here  is  not 
properly  put  in  prison,  but  "  delivered  up" — 
the  same  word  that  is  constantly  applied  to  the 
deed  of  Judas  and  translated  "  betrayed."   Hav- 


Ch.  I.] 


MARK. 


23 


came  into  Galilee,  preaching  the  gospel"  of  the  king- 
dom of  (lod. 

lo  And  saying,  The  time''  is  fulfilled,  and  the  king- 
dom of  Ciod  is  at  hand:  repent"' ye,  and  believe"'  the 
gospel. 

16  Now"'  as  he  walked  by  the  sea  of  (Jalilee,  he  saw 
Jimon,  and  Andrew  his  brother,  casting  a  net  into  the 
sea,  ifor  they  were  (ishers.) 


15  into  Galilee,  preaching  the  gospel  of  God,  and  say- 
ing. The  lime  is  fultilled,  and  the  kingdom  of  (j«xl 
is  at  hand:  rejient  ye,  and  believe  in  the  gospel. 

16  And  passing  along  by  the  sea  of  dalilee,  he  .saw 
Simon  and  Andrew  the  brother  of  Simon  castinj'  a 


a  Luke  8:  1....6  Dan.  2  :  44;9  :  -.15  ;  Gal.  1:1;  Eph.  1  :  10 c  Acts  2  :  38....d  Rom.  16  :  26 e  Matt.  4  :  18,  etc.;  Luke  5  :  4,  etc. 


ing  heard  of  the  event  (^latthew),  Jesus  re- 
turned to  Galilee. — Of  the  kingdom  should 
proljuhly  be  omitted,  and  we  sliould  read 
"  preueiiing  tlie  gospel  of  God,"  tlie  glad  tid- 
ings wliirh  God  was  now  sending  by  the  Mes- 
siali.  There  is  no  evidence  that  Jesus  pro- 
claimed tlie  glad  tidings  in  Galilee  during  his 
brief  visit  there  soon  after  his  baptism.  This 
is  not  his  tirst  i)reaching,  however,  as  a  reader 
of  ^lark  might  svippose,  for  lie  had  been  some 
months  laboring  in  Judtca. 

15.  The  time  is  fulfilled.  Literally,  "has 
been  fiillilled."  The  "  fulne.-<s  of  time"  has 
come;  the  moment  clioscn  and  foretold  has 
arrived. — The  kingdom  of  God.  The  reign 
of  (iod  over  men  in  the  Messiah,  the  predicted 
establishment  of  a  spiritual  power  in  tlie  world 
— misundei-stood,  however,  and  supposed  to  be 
the  estalilishment  of  a  great  national  power  by 
divine  authority. — Is  at  hand.  Literally,  "  has 
come  near."  It  has  ajjproached  in  point  of 
time,  and  it  luus  approached  through  the  agency 
of  preaching;  it  is  here  offered  to  the  Galilieans, 
ready  to  be  received  as  to  the  si)irit  of  it,  and 
they  will  see  more  and  more  of  its  spiritual 
glory  as  tlie  Messiah's  work  goes  on. — In  say- 
ing, Repent  ye,  the  Messiah  takes  up  the 
word  of  his  forerunner,  and  continues  the 
jireaching  that  the  multitudes  have  heard  by 
tlie  Jordan.  If  the  kingdom  is  at  hand,  the 
only  right  work  for  men  is  to  break  olf  their 
sinful  life  and  bring  forth  fruits  worthy  of  re- 
pentance. Here  there  is  no  contrast  or  dif- 
ference between  the  forerunner  and  tlie  Christ. 
The  word  "repent"  is  sometimes  supposed  to 
belong  to  the  law,  and  repentance  is  conceived 
of  as  something  prejiaratory  to  tlie  gospel ;  but 
rejtentance  is  an  evangelical  experience,  and 
only  in  the  light  of  the  gospel,  with  its  promise 
of  new  si>iritual  life,  does  the  call  to  repentance 
become  intelligible  as  a  word  of  grace. — And 
believe  the  gospel.  Literally,  "  believe  in 
the  gospel " — a  peculiar  form  of  expression 
found  here  alone:  "Put  your  trust,  repose 
your  confidence,  in  the  good  news  of  God." 
The  preaching  thus  briefly  reportetl  was  done 
quite  widely  through  Galilee,  and  was  widely 
accepted  with  joy  :  so  Luke  informs  us.  John 
attributes  the  welcome  that  Jesus  received  to 


the  knowledge  of  his  miracles  which  the  Gal- 
ilaeans  had  oljtained  at  the  passover.  Doubtless 
the  warmth  of  the  welcome  was  increased  by 
"  the  gracious  words  that  proceeded  out  of  his 
mouth  "  and  the  mighty  works  that  soon  ap- 
peared. 

10-20.  The  Re-Calling  of  Four  Disciples. 
Parallel,  Matt.  4  :  18-22.— Luke  5:1-11  appears 
to  be  parallel  as  a  narrative  of  the  calling  of 
these  disciples,  but  there  are  considerable  diffi- 
culties in  the  harmony,  and  no  one  who  looks 
for  a  rigid  correspondence  in  the  narratives  can 
think  for  a  moment  that  Luke  was  recounting 
the  same  event.  There  are  difficulties  in  either 
view,  but  it  seems  most  jirobable  that  the  three 
evangelists  had  the  same  event  in  mind. 

16.  Jesus  had  returned  to  Nazareth,  liut  after 
his  rejection  there  he  had  made  Capernaum  his 
home  (i.uke4:3i).  SimoH  and  Andrew.  By 
a  common  oversight,  this  is  often  spoken  of  as 
the  first  call  of  the  two  brothers,  and  their 
readiness  to  follow  Jesus  is  attributed  to  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Ba}>tist  in  preparing  them  for 
him.  IJut  they  had  been  among  his  very  ear- 
liest followers,  had  witnessed  his  first  miracle, 
had  been  with  him  at  the  passuver,  liad  been 
his  eonipanicms  in  labor  in  Jud«a,  even  bap- 
tizing disciples  for  him,  and  had  come  with 
him  through  Samaria  into  Galilee.  (See  note 
above.)  To  Simon,  Jesus  had  long  ago  given 
the  name  "  Cephas,"  the  equivalent  of  "  Peter  " 
(John  1:42).  After  coiuing  up  through  Samaria 
to  Galilee  his  followers  seem  to  have  scattereil 
to  their  homes — a  procee<ling  for  which  no  rea- 
son is  given.  But  he  had  left  JiuUea  to  escape 
hostile  observation,  and  perhaps  he  thought  it 
best  to  begin  in  (Jalilee  alone,  and  gather  his 
j  circle  again  when  he  was  ready ;  or  it  may  have 
been  for  rea.sons  connected  with  their  affairs 
that  he  let  them  go.  In  any  case,  no  doubt 
they  exjiected  to  be  called  again  to  fillow  him. 
— Now  he  came  upon  them  by  the  shore  of  the 
lake,  casting  their  net  into  the  sea,  or 
"casting  about  in  the  sea,"  as  in  the  best 
I  text — i.  e.  ca.sting  their  net  now  on  one  side 
J  of  the  boat,  and  now  on  the  other.  If  Luke 
5  :  1-11  is  parallel,  the  word  strikingly  illus- 
trates the  answer  of  Simon  :  "  Master,  we  have 
toiled  all  the  night  and  have  taken  nothing." 


24 


MARK. 


[Ch.  L 


17  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Come  ye  after  me,  and 
I  will  make  you  to  become  lisliers  of  men. 

18  And  straightway  they  forsooli  their  nets,  and  fol- 
lowed him. 

19  And  when  he  had  gone  a  little  further  thence,  he 
saw  James  the  tom  of  ZehciU'e,  and  .lohn  his  brother, 
who  also  were  in  the  ship  nionding  their  nets. 

20  And  straightway  he  called  them:  and  they  left 
their  lather  Zebedee'  in  the  ship  with  the  hired  ser- 
vants, and  went  after  him. 

21  And  they  went  into  Capernaum  :  and  straightway 


17  net  in  the  .sea :  for  they  were  fishers.  And  Jesus 
said  unto  them.  Come  ye  after  me,  and  I  will  make 

18  you  to  become  tishers  of  men.     And   straightway 

19  they  left  the  nets,  and  followed  him.  And  going  on 
a  little  further,  he  saw  James  the  son  of  Zebedee, 
and  John   his  brother,  who  also  were  in  the  boat 

20  mending  the  nets.  And  straightway  he  called  them : 
and  they  left  their  father  Zebedee  in  the  boat  with 
the  hired  servants,  and  went  after  him. 

21  And  they  go  into  Capernaum ;  and  straightway  on 


It  even  shows  them  in  the  midst  of  the  fruit- 
less toil. 

17.  Fishers  of  men.  "Ye  shall  gather 
men  in  great  numbers  for  the  kingdom  of 
God."  They  knew  from  tlieir  own  experience 
what  he  meant,  and  could  well  believe  the 
promise.  Jesus  utters  no  call  without  a 
promise. 

18.  It  was  already  a  case  of  "  my  sheep  hear 
my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and  they  follow 


way  that  he  had  gone  when  he  met  James  and 
John.  John  had  certainly  been  with  him  as 
long  as  Simon  and  Andrew,  and  so,  probably, 
had  James.  (See  note  on  chap.  3  :  17.)  In  the 
boat  were  Zebedee,  his  two  sons,  and  some 
hired  servants.  The  mention  of  the  servants 
proves  the  family  to  have  been  above  poverty. 
Out  of  the  five  or  more  in  the  boat,  only  two 
were  called.  It  does  not  appear  whether  Zeb- 
edee ever  became  a  disciple,  but  his  wife,  Salome, 


SITE   OF   CAPERNAUM. 


me"  (John  10:27).    The  renewing  of  the  call  in-  | 
dicatos  that,  imperfect  as  they  had  been,  they 
had  on  the  whole  been  true,  and  tliat  he  saw 
in  them  "chosen  vessels"  (xctsU:  is)  for  his  pur- 
pose.   Their  alacrity  is  a  sign  that  they  were 
not  unwilling  to  hear  again  the  familiar  voice  j 
and  to  resume  the  place  of  disciples.     It  was 
"inmiediately"  that  they  left  their  nets  and 
followed    him ;    so  that  they  were  with   him 
when,  a  little  fartlier  along  the  shore,  he  came 
upon  tlie  other  pair  of  brothers,  their  old  com- 
panions, "both  in  the  flesh  and  in  the  Lord." 
19,  20.  Mark  adds  that  it  was  only  a  little 


afterward  followed  Jesus  in  such  circumstances 
as  to  suggest  that  she  had  before  that  become  a 
widow. — Mark's  grajihic  style  appeal's  in  the 
final  picture.  They  left  their  father  Zeb- 
edee in  the  ship  with  the  hired  servants, 
and  went  after  him.  Did  he  grudge  them  to 
Jesus?  Parents  sometimes  wish  him  not  to  lay 
too  exacting  a  hand  uiion  their  children. 

21-34.  THE  p:vents  of  a  sabbath  in 

CAPERNAUM.  21-28.  The  Healing  of  a 
Demoniac  in  the  Synagogue.  Punil/rf.  Luke 
4  :  31-37.— They  went  or  enter)  into  Caper- 
naum, as  one  coni]iany  whose  lot  is  hence- 


Cii.  I.] 


MARK. 


25 


on  the  sabbath-day  he  entered  into  the  synagogue,  and  ;  the  Sabbath-dav  he  entered  into  the  sy naj^ojiiie  and 
taught.  j  22  taught.     And  they  were  a.stonished  at'his  uaching  : 

tl  .Vnd"  they  were  a.stoiii.slied  at  his  doctrine:  for  he  \  for  he  taught  them  a.s  having  autlioritv,  iiiul  nut  as 
taiiglit  them  as  one  that  liad  authority,  and  not  as  the  j  '2:$  the  scribes.  And  straightway  there  'was  in  their 
scril)es.  1  24 synagogue   a  man  willi  an  unclean  spirit;   and  lie 

2.'f  .\nd*  there  was  in  theirsynagogue  a  man  with  an  \       cried  out,  saying,  What  have  we  to  do  with   thee. 


unclean  s|iirit ;  and  he  cried  out, 

24  isaying,  i..el  ii.i  alone;  what  have  we  to  do  with 
thee,  thou  jesus  of  Nazareth  .'  art  thou  come  to  destroy 


thou  Jesus  of  >azareth'.'  art  thou  come  to  destroy 


a  Matt.  7  :  'iA 6  Luke  4  :  33,  etc. 


forth  oast  together,  the  call  liaviny;  taken  ])iace 
outside  the  town. — Straishtway  on  the  Sab- 
bath-day— ('.  e.  at  tlic  first  oi)i)nrtiiiiity,  on  tlie 
first  Saliliath  that  eaine.  The  straightway  or 
"  iiniiieiliately  "  exjiresses  Mark's  sense  of  the 
proniiitness  of  his  action — losing  no  time,  ha.s- 
teniiiu'  to  liis  work.— He  entered  into  the 
synagogue,  and  taught.  Literally,  in  the 
best  text,  "lie  taught  into  the  synagogue" — 
/.  e.  having  entered  tiie  synagogue,  he  taught. 
It  was  the  best  way  of  reaching  the  people  in 
their  religious  hours.  There  was  no  exclusive 
otiice  of  teaching  in  the  synagogues.  In  Xaz- 
areth  he  indicated  his  de.sire  to  speak,  and  it 
was  granted  (i.uke4:ifi);  and  at  Antiooh  in  Pi- 
sidia,  Paul  and  Barnabius  were  iusked  if  they  had 
any  word  of  exhortation  (acis  m  :  15).  j 

22.  They  were  astonished  at  his  doc-  i 
trine.  An  unfortunate  translation  which  has  [ 
licl|icd  to  render  distant,  vague,  and  unreal  j 
the  popular  conceptions  of  our  Lord's  life  a:ul 
influence.  It  was  his  "teaching,"  not  his  doc- 
trine, that  amazetl  them.  The  remark  is  iden- 
tical with  the  one  that  Matthew  places  at  the 
end  of  the  Serm(jn  on  the  Mount.  No  wonder 
tiiat  such  amazement  more  than  once  arose. — 
For  he  taught  them,  or  "was  teaching 
tiiein" — en  (lidn.iknn,  almost  identical  witli  the 
imperfect,  but  containing  somewhat  more  of 
tlie  (lcscrii)tive  element. — As  one  that  had 
authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes.  A 
broad  contra.st,  most  accurately  drawn  by  these 
few  words.  It  was  by  the  freshness  and  inde- 
l)endeiice  of  his  teat'hing  that  they  were  so  i)ro- 
foundly  impressed.  He  spoke  as  one  who  knew 
that  he  jiail  a  right  to  speak.  The  scribes  were 
mere  copyists  and  interpreters ;  everything  came 
at  second-liand ;  they  neither  had  nor  claimed 
any  independent  authority.  In  the  midst  of 
their  small  and  narrow  questionings  and  their 
stale  utterances  of  second-hand  opinion  the 
strong  and  positive  preaching  of  .Jesus  came  in 
like  a  i)reath  of  morning  air.  "  We  speak  that 
we  do  know,"  he  said  of  himself  (john  3 :  11).  His 
"  I  say  unto  you"  was  such  a  word  as  they  had 
never  bt'fore  heard.  No  wonder  that  they  drew 
the  contra.>;t  with  the  .scribes ;  and  yet  the  scribes 
held  the  multitude  in  a  bondage  that  he  did  not 


break.     "Ye  receive  not  our  witness,"  he  said, 
p(;sitive  and  true  though  it  is. 
23-2G.  A  man  with  an  unclean  spirit. 

Mark's  first  mention  of  a  demoniac.  Tlie  ilif- 
ticulties  that  beset  the  whole  subject  of  demo- 
niacal possession  are  very  great,  and  perhai>s 
they  will  never  be  entirely  removed.  The  re- 
corded cases  are  all  essentially  alike,  and  in  ex- 
amining this  one,  the  earliest,  it  will  be  well 
simply  to  look  at  the  recorded  facts  and  see 
what  is  given  us  a.s  the  material  for  a  judgment 
upon  the  nature  of  the  evil.  The  word  "  devil " 
is  never  right :  it  is  always  "demon."  Here  tlie 
man  is  .said  to  be  en  pncumuti  akathurtb,  "in  an  un- 
clean spirit " — i.  e.  in  such  a  sjMrit  as  the  element 
in  which  he  lived ;  in  the  power  of  such  a  spirit. 
"Unclean"  means  iniboly,  malign,  defiling. 
Luke  calls  this  "a  spirit  of  an  miclean  demon." 
As  for  the  state  of  the  man,  it  is  j^lain  tliat  in 
this  case  he  was  not  so  wild  Jis  to  avoid  .society 
or  so  violent  as  to  be  restrained  from  entering 
the  synagogue.  Whether  he  had  friends  pres- 
ent does  not  ai)pear.  The  man  spoke  out,  j)er- 
ceiving  and  knowing  Jesus,  without  having 
been  addressed ;  and  so  it  was  by  his  own  act 
that  he  came  under  the  notice  of  Jesas.  In  his 
address  the  authorities  are  divided  as  to  whether 
ea,  "  let  ahme,''  should  be  retained  (in  Mark  ;  it 
is  unquestioned  in  Luke),  and  'oefween  "  I  know 
thee"  and  "  we  know  thee"  (in  Luke,  "  I  know 
thee").  In  his  excited  cry  three  elements  ap- 
pear— recognition,  rejutlsion,  dread.  The  reiml- 
sion  is  fii-st  exjjressed,  then  the  dread,  and  then 
the  recognition  of  character,  whit-h  is  of  course 
the  foundation  of  both.  If  the  reading  is  ac- 
cejifed  that  gives  the  plural,  "we  know  thee" 
(as  it  is  by  Tischendorf ),  the  form  of  six>ech 
will  indicate  that  this  utterance  of  one  is  made 
in  liehalf  of  many,  or  by  one  as  the  representa- 
tive of  a  clii.-;s. — What  have  we  to  do  with 
thee,  Jesus  of  .Nazareth  (or  Nazarene)? 
Literally,  "  What  to  us  and  to  thee?"  There  is 
no  question  about  the  plural  here.  Here  is  jxjw- 
erftd  repulsion,  the  feeling  that  the  two  belong 
to  ojiposite  kingdoms  and  have  nothing  what- 
ever in  common.  The  language  reap])ears  ex- 
actly in  another  ea.se  to  which  the  same  charac- 
ter is  :t.>icribed  (chap.  5:7).     In    calling  Jesus  a 


26 


MARK. 


[Ch.  I. 


us?    I  know  thee  who  thou  art,  the  Holy  One  of 
God. 

25  And  Jesus  rebuked  him,  saying,  Hold  thy  peace, 
and  come  out  of  hiiu. 

26  And  when  the  unclean  spirit  had  torn  him,  and 
cried  with  a  loud  voice,  he  came  out  of  liim 

27  And  they  were  all  amazed,  insomuch  that  they 
questioned  amon^  themselves,  sayinj;.  What  thing  is 
this?  what  new  doctrine  is  this?  for  with  authority 
commandeth  he  even  the  unclean  spirits,  and  they  do 
obey  him. 


us?    I  know  thee  who  thou  art,  the  Holy  One  of 

25  God.     And  Jesus  rebuked  'him,  saying.  Hold  thy 

26  peace,  and  come  out  of  him.  And  the  unclean 
spirit,  -tearing  him  and  crying  with  a  loud  voice, 

27  came  out  of  him.  And  they  were  all  amazed,  inso- 
much that  they  questioned  among  themselves,  say- 
ing. What  is  this?  a  new  teaching!  with  authority 
he  commandeth  even  the  unclean  spirits,  and  they 


1  Or,  it 'i  Or,  convuUing 


Nazarene  it  is  quite  credible  that  a  hostile  mind 
may  have  been  willing  to  gratify  its  own  bitter- 
ness by  seizing  upon  any  well-known  term  of 
reproach. — Art  thou  come  to  destroy  us? 
Here  is  dread  of  the  mission  of  Jcsiis  i-egarded 
as  a  powerful  enemy,  and  dread  that  apparent- 
ly extends  throughout  the  class  to  which  the 
speaker  conceives  of  himself  as  belonging.  This 
instinctive  cry,  if  it  is  really  such,  betrays  their 
expectation  of  great  evil  from  his  coming.  Tliis 
language  also  is  reproduced,  substantially,  in  the 
similar  case  just  mentioned. — I  know  thee — or 
"we  know  thee" — who  thou  art,  the  Holy 
One  of  God.  Tlie  ground  of  the  repidsion  and 
dread.  All  Jews  would  recognize  this  as  a  title 
of  the  Messiah ;  and  the  sentence  declares  that  the 
speaker,  or  else  the  class  that  he  represents,  has 
recognized  Jesus  as  the  long-expected  Deliverer 
of  men,  and  feels  that  men  are  now  to  be  deliv- 
ered from  demoniac  power.  At  the  same  time, 
his  holiness  is  the  quality  that  suggests  the  name 
that  shall  express  the  hatred. — The  reply  of  Jesus 
is  simply  Hold  thy  peace,  or  "Be  silent," 
and  come  out  of  him.  Here,  as  always  in 
such  cases,  he  distinctly  assumes  that  there  is  a 
personality  that  can  be  addressed  apart  from 
that  of  the  man,  and  is  able  to  leave  the  man. 
Whatever  demoniacal  possession  may  have 
been,  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  Jesus 
did  thus  address  demons  as  resident  in  men  and 
command  them  out.  He  furtlier  refuses  to  allow 
the  testimony  that  this  personality  offers  to  him 
as  the  Messiah  ;  so,  still  mf)re  distinctly,  in  other 
cases,  as  at  verse  34.  Apparently  he  assents,  in 
the  spirit  of  it,  to  the  "  What  have  we  to  do  with 
thee?"  To  this  word  of  Jesus  there  is  a  re- 
sponse as  of  a  conscious  person — a  movement 
as  of  rage  at  being  compelled  to  leave  the  vic- 
tim, a  final  convulsing  of  the  victim's  body,  a 
final  crj'  as  of  inarticulate  rage ;  so,  still  more 
distinctly,  in  other  cases,  as  chap.  9  :  2G.  But 
the  most  evident  and  significant  response  is  obe- 
dience to  the  command  to  "  come  out  of  him," 
for  the  victim  is  quickly  left  free  from  the  evil 
power. 

Concerning  these  representations  it  may  be 
said,  (1)  The  conduct  of  the  man,  taken  by  it- 


self, could  be  accounted  for  on  the  groiand  of 
mere  insanity ;  it  is  not  questioned  that,  if 
there  was  genuine  possession,  it  produced  in- 
sanity. (2)  The  conduct  of  Jesus,  taken  by  it- 
self, cannot  naturally  be  accounted  for  on  that 
theory ;  he  assumes  something  different  from 
insanity — namely,  the  presence  of  an  evil  spirit. 
(3)  When  the  conduct  of  the  man  is  regarded 
in  the  light  of  that  of  Jesus,  all  comes  into 
harmony :  the  man  acts  as  one  so  possessed 
might  be  expected  to  act,  and  the  intruder  is 
treated  as  such  an  intruder  would  by  Christ  be 
treated.  (4)  Though  such  possession  is  unex- 
plained, it  cannot  be  shown  to  be  impossible. 
(5)  The  only  alternative  belief  to  that  of  the 
reality  of  possession  is  that  Jesus  allowed  the 
popular  belief  in  the  reality  of  possession  to 
pass  uncontradicted,  and  acted  as  if  it  were 
true,  because  he  knew  that  the  people  were  not 
prepared  for  any  other  way  of  dealing  with  the 
subject.  The  principle  of  accommodation  in 
divine  teaching  is  scriptural  (Matt.  i9 :  s),  but  tliis 
theory  presents  it  in  an  extremely  difficult 
form,  appearing  even  to  cast  doubt  on  the 
moral  sincerity  of  our  Saviour.  It  is  a  modern 
fashion  to  scoff  at  the  reality  of  demoniacal 
possession,  but  the  difficulties  that  attend  the 
denial  of  it  in  the  recorded  cases  seem  to  be 
quite  as  great  as  those  that  are  involved  in  ac- 
cepting it.  (For  further  illustration,  see  notes 
on  chap.  5  :  2-13  and  9  :  14-27.) 

27,  28.  The  teaching  and  the  miracle  awak- 
ened astonishment  and  inquiry.  What  thin§r 
is  this?  etc.  The  text  in  verse  27  is  to  be 
changed ;  but  after  the  true  reading  has  been 
ascertained  there  is  some  question  as  to  the 
punctuation  of  the  sentence.  Some  comicct  the 
words  with  authority  with  he  commandeth 
the  unclean  spirits.  It  seems  more  natural, 
especially  in  view  of  what  is  said  in  verse  22, 
to  connect  it  with  the  teaching.  Tischendorf's 
text  may  be  translated  thus:  "What  is  this? 
New  teacliing  with  authority ;  and  the  unclean 
spirits  doth  he  connnand,  and  they  obey  him." 
The  two  answers  to  the  question,  "  AVhat  is 
this?"  refer  to  the  two  parts  of  what  had  just 
occurred  in  the  synagogue,  the  teaching  and 


Ch.  I.] 


MARK. 


27 


28  And  immediately  his  fame  spread  abroad  through- 
out all  the  region  round  about  (Jalik-e. 

29  And"  loilliwilli,  wlieu  tbi'v  were  come  out  of  the 
synagojiue,  they  enicied  into  the  house  of  Pinion  and 
Andrew,  with  .lames  iind  ,J<ihn. 

:!u  l!nt  Simon's  wiles  mother  lay  sick  of  a  fever;  and 
anon  they  tell  lijni  of  her. 

:il  And  be  came,  and  took  her  by  the  hand,  and 
lifted  her  up;  and  immediately  the  fever  left  her,  and 
she  ministered  unto  Iheni. 


28  obey  hlni.  And  the  report  of  him  went  out  straight- 
way everywhere  into  all  the  region  of  Galilee  round 
about. 

2'J  And  straightway,  'when  they  were  come  out  of  the 
synagogue,  they  came  into  the  house  of  Simon  and 

30  Andrew,  with  James  and  John.  Now  .^imon's  wife's 
mother  lay  sick  of  a  fever;  and  straightway  they 

31  tell  him  of  her:  and  he  came  and  took  her  by  the 
hand,  and  raised  her  up;  and  the  fever  left  her,  and 
she  ministered  unto  them. 


a  Matt.  8  :  14;  Luke  4  :  38.- 


-I  Some  ancient  authorities  read  mhen  he  was  come  out  of  the  tynagogue,  he  ( 


tlie  miracle.  By  "  new  teaching  witli  autlior- 
ity"  is  meant  a  teaching  tliat  is  new  in  tliat  it 
ha.s  authority:  tlie  quality  of  autliority  is  the 
new  element.  To  them,  accustomed  to  the  end- 
less itei'ation  of  the  scribes,  authority  was  a 
novelty,  and  they  exclaimed  in  wonder  when 
they  felt  its  power.  After  this  had  come  to 
mind  the  miracle  was  rehearsed,  and  the  won- 
der at  the  power  of  his  mere  command  was 
renewed.  Charms  and  incantations  for  the 
purpose  of  exorcism  were  in  common  use,  and 
apparently  they  sometimes  seemed  to  be  suc- 
ce.ssful  (Matt.  12:27),  but  lie  Commanded,  and  it 
was  done.  But  oliserve  that  the  freshness  and 
independence  of  our  Lord's  teaching  made 
upon  these  hearers  an  impression  that  even  a 
miracle  following  it  could  not  etface.  As  they 
went  home  from  the  synagogue  they  talked  of 
both,  and  remembered  that  such  an  innovation 
as  authoritative  teaching  had  been  introduced 
in  their  jiresence.  Observe,  too,  that  no  word 
of  this  impressive  teaching  litis  been  preserved 
to  us.  We  might  imagine  that  the  words  that 
liave  not  been  i)reserved  for  the  use  of  the 
church  were  lost.  Not  so :  they  had  their 
effect  in  preparing  the  apostles  to  do  for  the 
church  what  they  have  done;  aiul  they  entered 
in  alst)  to  nuiko  up  thtit  i)ersonal  impression  of 
Christ  upon  the  world  which  rendered  Chris- 
tianity as  a  living  religion  possible.  If  Christ 
liad  said  less,  the  apostles  would  have  been 
less,  and  the  manifested  Redeemer  would  have 
taken  a  less  ]>owerful  hold  upon  men.  No 
word  was  lost,  and  we  are  still  reaping  the 
benelit  of  utterances  of  which  we  have  no 
knowledge  whatever. — The  fame  that  went 
out  Wits  the  fame  both  of  his  teaching  and  of 
his  mighty  works,  though  doubtless  the  latter 
■were  the  greater  with  those  who  heard.  The 
best  text  adds  "everywhere"  Iiefore  through- 
out all  the  region  round  about  (•alilee; 
and  the  thought  is  that  his  fame  spread  even 
beyond  Galilee,  to  the  surrounding  regions 
generally. 

29-Jl.  Healing  of  Peter's  Wife's  Moth- 
er.—  From  the  service  in  the  synagogue 
directly  to  the  house  of  the  disciples.     Mark 


alone  indicates,  by  one  of  his  quick  and  un- 
studied references,  tlitit  the  brothers  Simon 
and  Andrew  lived  together,  and  that  James 
and  John  went  home  with  them  from  the 
worshij)  in  the  synagogue  as  friemlly  guest.s — a 
pleasant  glimpse  of  social  and  family  life,  with 
Jesus  in  the  midst.  "  A  man's  foes  shall  be 
they  of  his  own  iKnisehold"  (iiatt.  io:»6),  but  by 
no  desire  of  Jesus.  The  way  in  which  he  con- 
stitutetl  the  band  of  apostles  put  high  honor 
upon  the  fitmily.  (See  notes  on  cha}).  3  :  16- 
19.)  Simon's  wife's  mother.  Of  her  we 
know  nothing  but  what  is  reconled  here. 
"Wife's  mother"  is  the  right  translation  of 
penthera,  which  means  a  "  mother-in-law  ;"  used 
of  a  husband's  mother  in  Matt.  10  :  35.  It  dis- 
tinctly implies  that  I'eter  was  married ;  and  that 
his  wife  was  not  afterward  put  away  from  any 
feeling  in  favor  of  celibacy  is  evident  from 
1  Cor.  9  :  5,  where  it  ap]>cars  that  she  accom- 
panied her  husband  in  his  apostolic  journej'- 
ings.  The  same  passage  shows  that  "  the  other 
apostles"  also  had  wives  at  that  time  who 
journeyed  with  them  ;  but  no  wife  but  Peter's 
is  alluded  to  in  the  Gospels. — Lay  sick  of  a 
fever.  Ijuke  calls  it  a  great  fever. — Anon 
once  meant  "  immediately,"  which  is  the  right 
word  here. — Tlie  i)rocess  of  healing  is  varitius- 
ly  described.  Luke  says.  "  Standing  over  her, 
he  rebuked  the  fever ;"  Matthew,  "  He  touched 
her  hand;"  Mark,  more  minutely,  and  he 
came,  and  took  her  by  the  hand,  and 
lifted  her  up. — Tlie  cure  is  (lcscril)ed  l)y  the 
same  word  in  all.  The  fever  left  her,  tiie 
same  as  in  John  4  :  52. — She  ministered 
unto  them.  Performed  such  service  as  the 
presence  of  guests  in  the  house  rec^uired.  Luke 
says  that  she  rose  and  went  about  the  work 
"  immediately,"  calling  attention  to  the  instan- 
taneousness  of  the  cure.  There  is  no  indi- 
cation as  to  whether  she  had  iiny  special  faith  : 
none  appears  to  have  been  asked  for  by  out 
Lord.  She  must  have  known  much  about 
him,  and  may  htive  been  of  it  believing  heart ; 
but  it  cannot  be  sliown  that  Jesus  always 
required  faitli  in  liimself  as  a  condition  of 
healing. 


28 


MARK. 


[Ch.  I. 


32  And  at  even,  when  the  sun  did  set,  they  brought 
unto  him  all  that  were  diseased,  and  them  that  were 
possessed  with  devils. 

y:5  And  all  the  city  was  gathered  together  at  the 
door. 

'64  And  he  healed  many  tliat  were  sick  of  divers  dis- 
eases, and  cast  out  many  devils ;  and  sufiiered  not  tlie 
devils  to  speak,  because  they  knew  him. 

lif)  And  in  the  morning,  rising  up  a  great  wliile  before 
day,  he  went  out,  and  departed  into  a  solitary  place,  and 
there  prayed. 

;56  And  Simon,  and  they  that  were  with  him,  followed 
after  him. 

:57  And  when  they  had  found  him,  they  said  unto  him, 
All  men  seek  for  thee. 

;^8  And  he  said  unto  them.  Let  us  go  into  the  next 
towns,  t  hat  I  may  preach  there  also :  for  therefore"  came 
1  forth. 


32  And  at  even,  Avhen  tlie  sun  did  set,  they  brought 
unto  him  all   that  were  sick,  and  them  that  were 

33  iposse.ssed  with  demons.    And  all  the  city  was  gath- 

34  ered  together  at  the  door.  And  he  healed  many  that 
were  sick  with  divers  diseases,  and  cast  out  many 
demons  ;  and  he  suH'ered  not  the  demons  to  speak, 
because  they  knew  him-. 

35  And  in  the  morning,  a  great  while  before  day,  he 
rose  up  and  went  out,  and  departed  into  a  desert 

30  place,  and  there  prayed.     And  Simon  and  they  that 

37  were  with  him  followed  after  him;  and  they  found 

38  him,  and  say  unto  him.  All  are  seeking  thee.  And 
he  saith  unto  them,  Let  us  go  elsewhere  into  the 
next  towns,  that  I  may  preach  there  also;  for  to 


a  Isa.  61  :  1,  '->;  John  17  :  8.- 


-1  Or,  demoniact 2Many  ancient  authorities  add  to  be  Christ.    See  Luke  iv.  41. 


32-34.  The  He.\ling  of  Many  at  Even- 
ing.—  This  grouii  of  miracles  belongs  really 
to  the  same  Sabbath,  though  strictly  the  Sab- 
bath was  over  before  it  began.  The  general 
movement  to  bring  him  the  sick  and  the  pos- 
sessed was  suggested  by  the  liealing  in  the  syn- 
agogue, but  was  delayed  till  after  sunset,  out 
of  reverence  for  the  Sabbath.  "Slavk  adds,  cha- 
racteristically, that  all  the  city  was  gath- 
ered at  the  door,  and  characteristically  omits 
Matthew's  remark  that  liere  the  prophecy  was 
fulfilled,  "  Himself  took  our  infirmities,  and 
bare  our  diseases"  (i«a.  53 : 4).  The  coolness  and 
quiet  of  the  evening — how  congruous  to  the 
work  of  healing,  especially  after  tlie  heat  and 
frenzy  of  demoniacal  possession !  Mark  says 
that  they  brought  all  and  he  healed  many ; 
Matthew,  that  he  healed  all ;  Luke,  that  he 
laid  his  hand  on  every  one  of  them  and  healed 
them.  —  He  suffered  not  the  devils — de- 
mons— to  speak,  because  they  knew  him. 
Implying  that  they  would  have  spoken,  and 
doubtless  in  the  strain  of  verse  24.  The  reason 
for  the  prohibition  was  protiably  the  moral 
incongruity.  ''  The  demons  also  believe  and 
tremble"  (jamcs  2:19);  but  it  was  not  fitting  that 
their  testimony  to  the  Holy  One  of  (Jod  should 
be  allowed  to  go  among  the  people  as  one  of 
the  evidences  of  his  mission. 

35-39.  JESUS  KETHIES  TO  PRAY,  IS 
FOLLOWED  BY  HIS  DISCIPLES,  AND 
ENTERS  UPON  A  WIDER  MINISTRY  IN 
GALILEE.  Puralleh,  Matt.  4  :  23 ;  Luke  4  : 
42-44. — The  time  is  apparently  the  next  morn- 
ing; so,  still  more  distinctly,  in  Luke.  A  great 
while  before  day.  The  designation  of  the 
hour  is  peculiar  to  Mark.  "  Early,  far  into  the 
night,"  is  nearly  an  e.xact  translation.  It  seems 
probable  that  the  day  just  spent  was  the  first 
day  of  so  intense  and  prolonged  miraculous 
activity  in  the  life  of  Jesus. — Very  naturally 
might  the  thoughts  suggested  by  such  an  ex- 


perience banish  sleep  and  impel  liim  to  prayer. 
So,  alone,  the  darkness  still  unbroken,  he 
went  out  from  the  house,  leaving  his  friends 
to  their  sleep,  and  sought  a  solitary  place, 
some  uninhabited,  lonely  spot  where  he  might 
pray.  An  impressive  illustration  of  his  love  of 
prayer,  and  of  his  desire  to  be  alone  for  com- 
munion with  his  Father. 

3G,  37.  Simon  and  they  that  were  with 
him — i.  e.  Andrew,  James,  and  John,  and  per- 
haps some  others. — Followed  after  him. 
The  word  is  a  strong  compound  word  that 
tells  us  that  they  followed  until  they  found 
him.  Luke  does  not  tell  who  the  pursuers 
were,  but  adds  their  motive  in  mentioning  the 
entreaty  that  he  would  not  depart  from  them. 
In  Mark  it  is  simply,  all  men  seek  for  thee. 
The  disciples  did  not  go  out  merely  for  them- 
selves, but  as  the  messengers  of  the  towns- 
people, who  had  begun  to  inquire  where  Jesus 
was,  and  who  wished  him  to  remain  among 
them.  As  he  had  gone  away  quietly,  they 
feared  that  he  did  not  intend  to  return,  and 
so  sent  tills  mes.sage  after  him. 

38.  But  he  had  other  plans,  more  in  keeping 
with  his  mission  :  he  did  not  intend  then  to  re- 
ttirn  to  Caj)ernauin.  After  let  us  go  should 
probably  be  inserted  "  elsewhere"  (nllarlum). — 
Into  the  next,  or  neighboring,  towns.  Xoiiio- 
poleis — literally,  "village-cities" — is  found  here 
alone  in  the  New  Testament ;  it  well  corresponds 
to  our  word  "  towns." — That  I  may  preach 
there  also.  It  is  preaching,  not  the  working 
of  miracles,  that  he  proposes  as  the  object  in 
this  ministry.  In  Luke,  "  In  the  other  cities 
also  must  I  )>reacli  the  kingdom  of  God."  In 
Capernaum  he  was  desired  probably  for  the 
miracles  of  healing  that  he  might  work,  but 
another  kind  of  labor  accorded  bettor  with  his 
purpose. — For  tlu'ielorc  cume  1  forth — i.  e. 
not  merely  to  preach,  as  distingiiishetl  from  the 
working  of  miracles,  but  more  especially   to 


Ch.  I.] 


MARK. 


29 


39  And  he  preached  in  their  synagogues  throughout    39  this  end  came  I  forth.     And  he  went  into  their 
all  (ialilee,  and  cast  out  devils.  synagogues  throughout  all  ualilee,  preaching  and 


-Iti  And"  there  came  a  leper  to  hiui,  bcseeeiiing  him, 


casting  out  demons. 
40     And  there  eometh  to  him  a  leper,  beseeching  hiiu, 


a  Mutt.  8:2;  Luke  5  :  1'2. 


preach  elsewhere  tlian  in  Capernaum,  to  labor 
in  a  wider  field. — Came  I  forth — whence? 
Standin.ij;  hy  it.self,  the  language  might  nat- 
(irally  mean  "came  forth  from  the  house  in 
( 'ai)ernaum ;"  and  yet  the  impression  made 
l)y  the  story  is  that  he  had  gone  forth  from 
the  house  to  pray,  rather  than  in  order  to  set 
out  on  a  new  tour  of  preaching,  and  that  when 
liis  disciples  joined  him,  and  told  of  the  popu- 
lar clamor  for  him  in  Capernaum,  he  determined 
to  go  elsewhere  instead  of  returning.  Some 
have  supjjosed  that  he  referred  to  his  ministry 
as  a  whole,  and  so  to  his  "coming  forth"  from 
his  retirement  at  Nazareth ;  but  Luke  quotes 
him  as  saying,  "  Because  for  this  I  was  sent" — 
njjcstnlen,  the  word  from  which  "  apostle "  is 
derived.  If  the  one  passage  interprets  the  other, 
Jesus  tolls  in  Mark  for  wliat  purpose  and  kind 
of  work  he  "  came  forth  "  from  God,  using  the 
word  cn-lthoii  in  the  same  .sense  as  in  John  8  :  42 
and  IG  :  28.  This  well  sets  forth  the  character 
of  liis  mission  :  he  did  not  come  to  fa.sten  him- 
self to  any  single  place  and  give  himself  to  the 
service  of  any  single  people;  lie  must  reach 
outward,  ttj  other  regions.  An  example  of  the 
ntissionary  impulse — not  only  an  illustration, 
hut  an  example.  It  is  not  enough  for  his  gospel 
to  bless  any  Capernaum ;  it  must  go  out  into 
other  regions.  His  mission  lias  been  trans- 
mitted to  his  people  (John  u:  i8; -io:  .'i),  and  in 
tiicir  hands  it  is  of  the  .same  kind  as  in  his:  it 
allows  no  sitting  down  at  home  and  confining 
the  privileges  to  the  privileged.  The  word 
of  the  Ma.ster  is  "Go"  (Matt.  28: 19) — a  word 
whiih  he  has  illustrated  for  us  by  liis  own 
example. 

3S).  Accordingly,  his  tour  extended  to  all 
C.alilec;  but  the  language  is  popular,  not 
exact.  Galilee  was  a  crowded  region,  and  he 
Cfinnot  have  visited  strictly  every  part.  Within 
this  tour  i>r()l)ably  falls  the  ministry  in  Cho- 
razin  and  Bctlisaida,  or  some  part  of  it  (Matt. 
II; 21).  None  of  the  mighty  works  performed 
in  these  cities  do  we  see,  except  the  later 
miracle  of  Mark  8  :  22-2G.  The  length  of  this 
tour  lias  been  very  variously  estimated,  but 
cannot  be  exactly  ascertained;  it  is  safe  to  say 
that  it  mu.st  have  covered  some  week.s.  The 
activity  of  this  time  was  not  conlined  to  preach- 
ing: he  was  casting  out  demons  as  well.  Mat- 
thew states  it  still  more  stronglv  :  "  Healing  all 


manner  of  sickness  and  all  manner  of  disease 
among  the  people."  Performing  miracles  in  a 
fresh  ministry,  on  a  new  field,  was  a  different 
thing  from  continuing  to  perform  them  in 
Capernaum,  where  they  were  desiretl  as  a  local 
honor  and  advantage. 

40-45.  WHILE  PREACHING  IN  GAL- 
ILEE, JESUS  HEALS  A  LEPER.  Pamllels, 
Matt.  8:2-1;  Luke  5  :  12-16.— The  place  and 
time  are  unknown ;  Litke,  "  When  lie  was  in 
one  of  the  cities."  This  is  the  first  recorded 
healing  of  leprosy ;  two  healings  of  fever  and 
one  of  demoniacal  possessioit  have  been  re- 
corded, and  one  of  paralysis  immediately  fol- 
lows. Leprosy  is  minutely  described  for  the 
l)urposes  of  the  law  in  Lev.  13,  and  the  office 
of  the  priest  in  connection  with  the  recovery 
from  the  disease  in  Lev.  14.  Leprosy  was  a 
fre(]uent  disease  among  the  Israelites,  from  the 
time  of  the  Egyptian  bondage.  In  the  Mosaic 
code  it  was  recognized  as  a  most  suggestive  type 
of  sin,  and  was  employed,  in  a  manner  that  is 
not  entirely  plain  to  tis  in  our  ignorance  of 
much  that  belonged  to  the  disease,  as  an  object- 
lesson  in  religious  instruction.  The  jmncipal 
signs  of  the  disease  were  the  appearance  of  a 
white  spot  or  swelling  in  the  Hcsh,  with  inflam- 
mation and  cracking,  and  the  exuding  of  a 
humor  from  the  affected  [lart,  in  connection 
with  which  the  skin  became  scaly,  hard,  and 
white.  While  the  disea.se  was  spreading  upon 
his  body  the  leper  was  totally  "  unclean,"  and 
was  obliged  to  separate  himself  strictly  from 
other  pei-sons  and  alKiw  no  one  to  come  near 
him.  The  provisions  of  the  Mosaic  law  on  the 
subject  were  very  peculiar,  lus  the  study  of  the 
two  chajttei-s  named  will  show,  and  our  know- 
ledge of  the  (lisea.se  is  not  such  as  to  enable  us 
to  acc.nint  for  them  all.  It  is  not  certain  that 
the  fear  of  contagon  will  explain  them  ;  indeed, 
there  certainly  was  a  religious  element  in  the 
horror  of  the  disease.  Doubtless  it  was  in- 
tended that  leprosy  should  teach  a  lesson  re- 
specting moral  defilement. 

40.  There  came  a  leper  to  him.  The 
ten  lepers,  in  Luke  17  :  12,  stood  afar  otf,  accord- 
ing to  the  law,  but  this  man  ajipears  to  have 
violated  the  law  by  his  approach  to  Jesus.  He 
came  and  knelt— so  near  that  a  stretching  out 
of  the  hand  would  reach  him.  Luke's  language 
places  him  among  the  more  severelv  afflicted  of 


30 


MARK. 


[Ch.  I. 


and  kneeling  down  to  him,  and  saying  unto  him,  If 
thou  wilt,  tliou  canst  make  me  clean. 

41  And  Jesus,  moved  with  compassion,  put  forth  his 
hand,  and  touched  him,  and  saith  unto  him,  I  will ;  be 
thou  clean. 

42  And  as  soon  as  he  had  spoken,  immediately  the 
leprosy  departed  from  him,  and  he  was  cleansed. 

43  And  he  straitly  charged  him,  and  forthwith  sent 
him  away ; 

44  And  saith  unto  him,  Pee  thou  say  nothing  to  any 
man;  but  go  thy  way,  shew  thyself  to  the  priest,  and 
oHer  for  thy  cleansing  those  things'  which  Moses  com- 
manded, for  a  testimony^  unto  them. 


land  kneeling  down  to  him,  and  saying  unto  him, 

41  If  thou  wilt,  thou  canst  make  me  clean.  And  being 
moved  with  compassion,  he  stretched  forth  his  hand, 
and  touched  him,  and  saith  unto  him,  1  will ;  be  thou 

42  made  clean.  And  straightway  the  leprosy  departed 
4:5  from  him,  and  he  was  made  clean.  And  he  -strictly 
44  charged  him,  and   straightway  sent  him   out,  and 

saith  unto  him,  .'^eo  thou  .say  nothing  to  any  man: 
but  go,  shew  thyself  to  the  priest,  and  offer  "for  thy 
cleansing  the  things  which  Moses  commanded,  for  a 


aPs.  33  :9;  John  la  :  3. ...I  Lev.  U  :  2,  32. 


..cRom.  15  : 1;  1  Cor.  10  :  11. 

to  him :2  Or,  sternly 


Some  aDcieut  authorities  omit  and  kneeling  down 


lepers,  to  whom  this  was  forbidden. — His  com- 
ing announces  Iiis  eagerness  to  be  healed ;  his 
words  indicate  tliat  he  had  confidence  in  the 
power  of  Jesus  to  heal  him,  probaljl y  from  wliat 
he  had  heard  or  seen  ;  but  his  words  appear  to 
indicate  an  inferior  faith  in  liis  willingness. 
If  thou  wilt,  thou  canst  make  me  clean. 
Yet  the  inferiority  of  his  faith  in  the  willing- 
ness can  scarcely  have  been  more  than  apparent. 
If  he  liad  not  beheved  in  the  willingness  of  the 
Healer  perhaps  more  profoundly  than  he  was 
aware,  he  would  not  have  been  prostrate  at  his 
feet.  Nevertheless,  while  he  was  venturing 
boldly  upon  his  power,  he  had  not  gone  be- 
yond the  point  where  he  felt  that  he  must 
humbly  entreat  the  consent  of  his  will.  How 
many  there  are  still  who  know  the  Saviour's 
heart  no  better! 

41.  It  is  Mark  that  adds  moved  with  com- 
passion, put  forth  his  hand  and  touched 
him.  80  all  three  reports.  Of  course  there 
was  no  need  of  touching  him  in  order  to  per- 
form the  cure ;  even  the  Roman  centurion 
knew  that  (Matt.  8 :  s).  To  touch  him  was  not  ex- 
actly a  violation  of  the  law ;  the  violation  was 
rather  in  the  permission  of  it  by  the  leper.  But 
it  was  a  plain  declaration  of  his  indifference  to 
ceremonial  defilement.  It  was  done  in  order  to 
illustrate  for  the  man  the  depth  and  freeness  of 
liis  word,  I  will.  That  word,  I  will,  be  thou 
clean,  would  have  been  enougli ;  l>ut  if  the 
man  had  any  doubt  of  the  fulness  of  his  con- 
sent, no  thought  of  defilement  shotild  stand  in 
the  way  for  a  moment.  Doubts  of  his  power 
might  be  dispelled  by  miraculous  works ;  but 
doubts  of  his  love  must  be  removed  by  acts  of 
love.  What  utterance  of  consent  and  willing- 
ness could  be  richer  and  sweeter  than  the  vol- 
untary touching  of  the  leper?  It  is  interesting 
that  the  question  and  answer  and  the  record  of 
the  touch  are  jirescrved  in  the  selfsame  words 
by  all  three  evangelists:  the  beauty  of  the  scene 
and  its  value  in  showing  the  heart  of  Jesus  did 
not  fitil  to  make  a  deep  impression. 

42.  The  best  text  omits  the  words  as  soon 


as  he  had  spoken.  The  cure  was  instantane- 
ous, however,  and  complete.  Not  in  vain  had 
the  man  ventured  upon  the  power  and  willing- 
ness of  Jesus.  Did  Jesus  endeavor  to  remove 
the  ceremonial  defilement  that  resulted  from 
contact  with  a  leper? 

43,  44.  He  straitly  charged  the  man  to 
be  silent,  as  in  Matt.  9  :  30  and  Mark  5  :  43 ;  but 
here  the  word  is  a  very  strong  one,  of  which 
"  sternly  charged  "  would  be  a  better  translation. 
It  implies  severity  in  tone  and  manner.  The 
word  translated  sent  away  is  also  a  strong 
word,  being  the  common  word  for  "  casting 
out"  evil  spirits.  Jesus  urged  the  man  quick- 
ly away,  with  a  very  stern  injunction  of  silence 
about  the  miracle.— Verse  44  contains  the  sub- 
stance of  the  strict  charge.  Jesus  would  not 
have  the  miracle  noised  abroad,  but  he  would 
have  the  man  restored  to  his  place  in  society. 
The  local  and  temporary  reasons  for  enj(iining 
silence  are  of  course  beyond  our  reach.  Go 
thy  way,  shew  thyself  to  the  priest.  The 
priest  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  healing  of 
leprosy,  but  he  was  the  officer  who  must  certify 
to  the  reality  of  healing  before  a  man  could  take 
his  i^lace  among  his  friends.  He  must  examine 
the  man,  pronounce  liim  clean,  receive  from 
him  and  present  in  his  behalf  certain  offerings, 
and  perform  over  him  a  prescribed  symbolic 
ceremony  (Lev.  i*).  The  command  of  Jesus  is 
that  the  man  shall  carry  his  offerings  to  the 
priest  and  get  his  certificate  of  health. — For  a 
testimony  unto  them.  Not  to  the  priests, 
for  only  "  the  priest"  has  been  mentioned  (alike 
in  the  three  records),  but  to  the  people :  "  For 
an  evidence  to  tlie  community  that  your  lep- 
rosy is  gone."  Other  interpretations,  such  as, 
"  For  a  testimony  that,  after  all,  I  reverence  the 
law,"  and  "  For  a  testimony  that  I  am  the  Mes- 
siah, proved  sitch  l^y  miraculous  works,"  are 
arbitrary  and  foreign  to  the  context. — Offer 
for  thy  cleansing.  Better,  "on  account  of 
it,"  or  "  in  view  of  it,"  not  with  reference  to 
securing  it,  as  a  reader  of  the  English  text 
might  suppose. 


Ch.  IL] 


MARK. 


31 


4o  But  he  went  out,  and  bepan"  to  publish  il  much,  :  45  testimony  unto  theiu.    But  he  went  out,  and  began 


and  to  blaze  abroad  the  matter,  insomuch  that  Jesus 
could  no  more  openly  enter  into  the  city,  but  was  with- 
out in  desert  places;  and'  they  came  to  hear  him  I'rom 
every  (juarter. 


to  publish  it  much,  and  to  spread  abroad  the  'mat- 
ter, insomuch  that  -Jesus  could  no  more  openly  en- 
ter into  %  city,  but  was  without  in  desert  places: 
and  they  came  to  him  Iroiu  every  quarter. 


CHAPTER    II. 


.4   NI>  again  he  entered  into  Capernaum  after  simie 
J\_  days;  and  it  wa.-i  noised  that  he  was  in  the  house. 

2  And  straightway  many  were  gathered  together,  in- 
somuch thattfiere  was  no  "room  to  receive  //iftn,  no,  not  1 
so  much  as  about  the  door:  and  he  preached''  the  word  I 
unto  them. 


1  And  when  he  entered  again  into  Capernaum  after 
some  days,  il  was  noised  that  he  was  'in  the   house. 

2  And  many  were  gathered  together,  so  that  there  was 
uo  longer  room  jur  them,  no,  not  even  about  the  door: 


oPs.  7T  :  11,12;  Tit.  I  :  10....6ch.  2  :  13....C  Ps.  40  :  9.- 


-IGr.  tpord 2Gr.  Ae....3  0r,  tAe  city iOr, athome 


45.  The  injunctions  of  secresy  were  usually 
ill  vain,  and  so  now :  the  man  could  not  keep 
it  to  hini.self.  To  blaze  abroad  the  mat- 
ter.  Ik'ttcr,  "to  i)ii!)lish  ubroail  tiic  story." 
Perhai).-i  our  Lord's  discerninent  of  a  tendency 
to  sucli  disobedience  in  the  man  was  tlie  occa- 
sion of  his  special  sternness.  Tiie  man  had 
obtained  his  lieart's  desire,  but  regarded  not  the 
desire  of  his  Healer;  and  too  much  like  liini 
are  many  whom  the  same  gracious  Lord  has 
blessed.  Jesus  might  iiave  said  to  him,  in  turn, 
"If  tiiou  wilt,  thou  canst"  obey  my  command- 
ment. 

The  Effect. — He  could  no  more  (consist- 
ently with  his  purpo.se  and  tlic  kind  of  influ- 
ence he  wislied  to  exert)  openly  enter  {as  be- 
fore) into  the  city  (or,  nither,  into  town — /.  c. 
into  any  city),  but  was  without,  in  desert 
places,  and  tliey  came  to  him  from  every 
quarter  (seeking  and  linding  him  even  in  his 
retirement).  Luke  seems  to  mention  here  a 
si)ecial  time  when  many  sought  liim  to  hear 
and  l)e  healed,  and  he  was  not  to  be  found, 
having  withdrawn  to  pray. 

1-12.  AFTER  RETURNING  TO  CAPER- 
NAUM. JESUS  HEALS  A  PARALYTIC. 
IWallch,  Matt.  9  :  1-S;  Luke  5  :  17-2(5.— There 
is  no  better  place  than  this  to  notice  tlie  impos- 
sibility of  finding  an  agreement  in  the  evan- 
gelists as  to  the  order  of  events  in  this  part  of 
our  Lord's  ministry.  This  healing  of  a  par- 
alytic is  placed  by  Matthew  immediately  after 
the  healing  of  the  Gadarene  demoniac.  But 
that  miracle  is  not  mentioned  by  Mark  until 
his  fifth  chapter,  where  it  is  followed  by  the 
narrative  of  the  raising  of  Jairus's  daughter. 
Matthew  certainly  docs  not  follow  the  order  of 
time,  but  gnnips  events  according  to  their  cha- 
racter. Luke  moves,  in  this  part  of  the  liistory, 
more  nearly  along  with  Mark,  yet  not  perfectly. 
The  only  way  is  to  follow  Mark's  order,  which 
beai-s  tiie  clearest  internal  signs  of  being  delib- 
erately adopted;  but  minute  harmonizing  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  intended,  and  we  cannot 
say  very  positively  that  we  are  sure  of  the  true 
3 


arrangement  of  events.  In  this  volume,  there- 
fore, not  mucli  labor  is  spent  in  discussing  ques- 
tions of  order. 

1,2.  Luke  specifies  no  place,  and  Mattliew 
refers  to  Capernaum  as  "  his  own  city  " — i.  e. 
the  city  tiiat  he  had  made  his  own,  as  his  res- 
idence, since  he  left  Nazareth.  This  was  his  only 
liome,  and  probably  the  house  here  mentioned 
— which  was  most  likely  tlie  house  of  Peter  and 
Andrew  again  (as  at  chap.  1  :  29) — was  his  only 
home  within  Capernaum.  It  was  when  he  had 
just  left  this  home,  on  his  last  journey  to  Jeru- 
salem, that  he  said,  "  The  Son  of  man  hath  not 
where  to  lay  his  head  "  (Luke  9 :  58).  To  this  home 
hereturncd  after  some  Aixys  {dVlietneriJu,  ararQ 
form  of  e.\i)ression,  l)ut  i)lain  enough,  denoting 
perfectly  indefinite  time).  Neither  here  nor  in 
Luke  is  there  any  help  in  measuring  the  length 
of  the  time  spent  in  the  circitit  througli  Galilee. 
According  to  Luke,  there  were  "sitting" — i.  e. 
with  him  within  the  house  —  Pharisees  and 
teachers  of  the  law,  wiio  had  come  from 
throughout  Galilee  and  Judtea,  and  even  from 
Jerusalem.  "  From  every  village"  is  a  po^nilar 
expression  not  to  be  pressed  closely.  The  pres- 
ence of  .some  from  .Jerusalem  may  perhaps  be 
taken  (though  not  too  confidently)  as  an  allu- 
sion to  the  ministry  in  Jerusalem  mentioned  by 
John,  but  i>a.ssed  over  in  silence  by  the  synop- 
tists.  These  men  may  have  come  up  to  Galilee 
to  watch  tlie  ministry  that  had  then  alarmed 
them.  But  the  work  of  Jesus  was  not  yet  very 
well  understood  :  there  is  no  sign  of  hostile  feel- 
ing in  this  story  until  he  announced  tlie  for- 
giveness of  sins ;  and  it  is  quite  possible  that 

;  this  was  a  visit  of  inquiry.with  hostile  feeling 
as  yet  developed  only  in  i)art. — Besides  tlie  vis- 

;  itors  from  abroad,  there  was  a  throng  of  the 
people  of  the  town  ;  and  it  is  Mark,  as  usual,  who 
tells  us  that  the  report  of  his  presence  brought 
tlieni  together,  and  that  thoy  were  so  many 
that  there  was  no  room  to  receive  them, 
no,  not  so  much  as  about  the  door.  He 
tells  us  tliat  Jesus  preached,  or  w;is  s[)eaking, 

I  the  word  unto  them,  when  the  incident  that 

I  he  relates  took  place ;  and  Luke  adds  the  unusual 


32 


MARK. 


[Ch.  II. 


3  And"  they  come  unto  him,  l)ringing  one  sick  of  the 
palsy,  which  was  borne  of  four. 

4  And  when  they  couid  not  come  nigh  unto  him  for 
the  press,  they  uncovered  the  roof  where  he  was :  and 
when  they  had  broken  %l  up,  they  let  down  the  bed 
wherein  the  sick  of  the  palsy  lay. 


3  and  he  spake  the  word  unto  them.  And  they  come, 
bringing  unto  him  a  man  sick  of  the  palsy,  borne 

4  of  four.  And  when  they  could  not  'come  nigh  unto 
him  for  the  crowd,  they  uncovered  the  roof  where 
he  was  :  and  when  they  had  broken  it  up,  they  let 
down  the  -bed  whereon  the  sick  of  the  palsy  lay. 


a  Matt.  9  :  1,  etc. ;  I..uke 


-I  .Many  Hiicieut  authorities  read  bring  him  unto  hin 


'■  Or,  pallet 


remark  that  "  tlie  power  of  the  Lord  was  (pres- 
ent) to  Ileal  tlieni,"  or  else,  as  Tischendorf  reads, 
"  The  power  of  the  Lord  was  (present)  that  he 
shotild  heal."  In  either  case  the  expression  is 
peculiar,  hut  in  either  case  the  allusion  is  to  the 
free  presence  of  healing  energy  in  Jesus. 

3.  Not  one  sick  of  the  palsy,  but  "  a  par- 
alytic."    Palsy  and  paralysis  are  not  the  same 


4.  By  reason  of  the  crowd  about  the  door 
they  could  not  come  near  to  Jesus,  and  were 
driven  to  ingenuity  as  the  means  of  getting 
within  his  reach.  A  flight  of  stairs  led  fr(jm 
tlie  ground  to  the  roof  of  the  house,  and  they 
bore  the  sick  man  up  over  the  head  of  Jesus. 
Then  they  uncovered — or,  literally,  "unroof- 
ed"— the  roof,  took  a  i)art  of  the  roof  away- 


Linri.M;  down   in  a  bed. 


disease,  though  the  names  have  a  common  ori- 
gin, and  there  is  no  reason  for  confounding 
them  here.— He  was  borne  of  four,  as  Mark 
alone  tells  us — /.  e.  carried  on  the  mattress  or 
thick  quilt  that  formed  his  couch  by  one  friend 
at  eacli  of  the  four  corners.  Cases  of  local  and 
partial  paralysis  are  of  course  frequent,  but  the 
details  of  this  story  seem  to  show  tliiat  the  pa- 
tient was  thoroughly  helpless. 


In  the  lack  of  any  description  of  the  house,  we 
cannot  jiicture  the  act  to  ourselves  as  clearly  as 
we  would.  Some  think  that  Jesus  was  in  the 
"  upper  room  "  of  the  house,  and  some  that  he 
was  on  the  ground-floor ;  while  some  think  he 
may  have  been  in  the  open  yard,  just  beside  the 
wall,  and  that  what  was  removed  was  the  rail- 
ing aroinid  the  roof  But  Thomson's  tlieory  of 
tlie  matter  is  very  simple,  and  seems  to  be  suf- 


Ch.  II.] 


MARK. 


33 


5  When  Jesus  saw  their. faith,"  he  said  unto  the  sick 
of  the  palsy,  Son,  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee. 


5  And  Jesus  seeing  their  faith  saith  unto  the  sick  of 


a  Acts  14:9;  Eph.  2  :  8. 


Ik'ient  (The  Land  and  the  Book,  2.  G-8).  He 
thinks  that  the  house  was  one  of  tliose  that 
are  abundantly  illustrated  by  the  ruins  in  that 
region,  as  well  as  by  existing  houses — a  low, 
one-story  house  with  a  flat  roof;  not  a  large 
house  built  around  a  court,  but  a  square  house 
with  the  entrance  through  a  recess  or  entry 
under  the  roof  and  open  to  the  yard.  Whether 
Jesus  stood,  as  Thomson  thinks  probable,  in 
this  entry  between  the  yard  and  the  interior  of 
the  house,  or  in  some  room  within,  the  pnjcess 
would  be  the  same.  The  roofs  of  such  houses 
vary  in  construction,  but  can  all  be  broken  up 
without  dilHculty.  Thomson  describes  a  roof 
of  the  heavier  kind,  containing  a  layer  of  stiff 
mortar;  and  he  says  the  only  ditliculty  in  ojjcn- 
ing  such  a  roof  would  be  the  inconvenience  aris- 
ing from  a  shower  of  dust.  But  he  speaks  of 
other  roofs,  made  of  boards  or  stone  slabs, 
which  might  be  still  more  easily  taken  up. 
Perhaps  Luke's  phrase — "through  the  tiling;" 
literally,  "  through  the  tiles  " — may  be  a  remin- 
iscence of  the  actual  construction  of  the  roof, 
and  may  remove  the  difficulty  by  suggesting 
that  nothing  was  necessary  but  to  lift  the  tiles 
with  which  the  building  was  covered.  As  for 
any  serious  e.xertion  or  need  of  appliances  in 
letting  the  man  down,  Thomson  .says,  speaking 
of  sinular  houses  that  are  still  to  be  seen,  "  Ex- 
amine one  of  these  houses,  and  you  see  at  once 
that  the  thing  is  natm-al  antl  easy  to  be  accom- 
plished. The  roof  is  only  a  few  feet  high,  and 
by  stooi)ing  down  and  holding  the  corners  of 
the  couch — merely  a  thick  padded  quilt,  as  at 
]>resent  in  this  region — they  could  let  down  the 
sick  man  without  any  apparatus  of  ropes  or 
cords  to  assist  them.  The  whole  affair  was  the 
extemporaneous  device  of  plain  peasants  accus- 
tomed to  open  their  roofs  and  let  down  grain, 
straw,  and  other  articles,  as  they  still  do  in  this 
coinitry." 

5.  Wlien  Jesus  saw  their  faith.  The 
faith  of  them  all,  the  sulfcrer  and  those  who 
were  bringing  him.  He  saw  it  in  their  works. 
The  eagerness  and  persistency  were  manifest  to 
all  beholders,  but  he  saw  in  it  their  faith.  He 
can  discern  faith  through  all  its  expressions. 
In  them  all  it  was  faith  in  his  power  to  heal ; 
in  the  paralytic  himself  there  was  something 
more  that  qualified  him  to  receive  something 
more  than  liealing. — Son,  teknon ,-  here  alone 
iLsed  by  Jesus  in  address. — Thy  sins  be— are 
—forgiven.  Said  only  liere  and  at  Luke  7  : 
3 


47,  48.  But  why  did  he  begin  thus?  This 
was  not  what  wa.s  expected  of  him,  either  by 
the  spectators  or  by  tho.se  who  had  come  in 
faith.  Even  to  the  man  this  would  be  a  sur- 
prise. But  first,  in  the  answer  to  the  question 
"Why?"  is  the  fact  that  this  was  a  case  in 
which  the  man's  sins  could  be  forgiven.  We 
must  not  think  that  this  utterance  was  a  prep- 
aration for  something  that  was  to  follow,  and 
was  made  in  order  to  draw  out  the  thoughts 
of  the  hearers.  First  of  all,  this  was  a  true 
and  honest  declaration  of  real  pardon.  Hence 
it  gives  us  a  true  glimp.se  into  the  man's  soul ; 
for  it  assures  us  that  he  was  a  penitent  and  a 
humljle  man.  This  is  a  great  word,  too,  in  the 
testimony  it  l)ears  to  our  Lord  himself.  Unless 
this  was  all  fraud  and  false  show,  he  did  so 
read  the  heart  of  the  man  as  to  know  that  he 
was  a  fit  person  to  receive  the  pardon  of  his 
sins.  Unless  he  was  deceiving  all  who  heard 
him,  he  knew  the  man's  standing  in  the  sight 
of  G<k1.  He  distinctly  claimed  to  know  it;  but 
he  claimed  more  still :  he  claimed  also  to  speak 
for  God  in  the  announcement  of  pardon.  Di- 
vine insight  and  divine  prerogative,  he  openly 
assumed  that  he  possessed.  To  deny  that  lie 
made  these  transcendent  claims  is  to  make  his 
conduct  so  friv<)lous  and  wicked  that  all  our 
confidence  and  interest  in  him  is  gone  for  ever. 
To  admit  that  he  made  the.se  claims  and  to 
deny  his  right  to  do  so  is  e<]ually  to  destroy 
our  confidence  and  interest  in  him.  So  this  one 
saying,  Son,  thy  sins  be  forgiven,  proves 
that  Jesus  possessed  divine  jiowers  and  divine 
prerogatives,  or  else  it  proves  that  he  was  a 
charlatan  to  whose  claims  the  world  ought 
never  to  have  i>aid  any  attention.  This  is  one 
of  the  cases  in  which  the  choice  lies  between 
admitting  the  presence  and  action  of  divine 
attributes  and  making  his  words  blasphemy 
toward  God  and  insult  to  man.  But  further 
reason  there  must  have  been  for  his  lieginning 
with  ])ardon  instead  of  healing,  and  the  sjKKiial 
reason  was  found  in  what  he  saw  in  the  man's 
heart.  There  he  saw  not  only  that  ])ardon 
could  be  given  to  him,  but  that  it  was  the  fit- 
ting gift  to  be  offered  first.  When  a  soul  is 
truly  ready  to  be  forgiven,  nothing  will  come 
between  that  soul  and  forgiving  grace:  the 
Lord  is  "ready  to  forgive."  Sickness,  perhaps, 
had  touched  the  man's  heart,  and  perhaps  con- 
science told  him  that  to  sin  the  sickjuess  was 
directly  due. 


34 


MARK. 


[Ch.  II. 


6  But  there  were  certain  of  the  scribes  sitting  there, 
and  reasoning  in  their  hearts, 

7  Why  doth  this  man  thus  speak  blasphemies?  Who 
can  forgive  sins"  hut  God  only  ? 

8  And  immediately,  when  Jesus  perceived  in  his 
spirit  that  they  so  reasoned  within  themselves,  he  said 
unto  them,  Why  reason  ye  these  things  in  your  hearts  ? 

9  Whether  is  it  easier,  to  say  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy, 
Thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee ;  or  to  say,  Arise,  and  take  up 
thy  bed,  and  walk  ? 

10  Kut  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath 
power''  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,  (he  saith  to  the  sick  of 
the  palsy,) 


6  the  palsy,  iSon,  thy  sins  are  forgiven.  But  there 
were  certain  of  the  scribes  sitting  there,  and  rea- 

Tsoning  in  their  hearts.  Why  doth  this  man  thus 
speak?  he  blasphemeth :   who  can  forgive  sins  but 

8one,  e«en  God  ?  And  straightway  Jesus,  perceiving 
in  his  spirit  that  they  so  reasoned  within  them- 
selves, saith  unto  them.  Why  reason  ye  these  things 

9 in  your  hearts?    Whether  is  easier,  to  say  to  the 

sick  of  the  palsy,  Thy  sins  are  forgi\-en  :  or  to  say, 

10  Arise,  and  take'up  thy  ^bed,  and  walk?     Kut  that 

ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath  authority 

on  earth  to  forgive  sins  (he  saith  to  the  sick  of  tlie 


o  Isa.  43  :  25;  Dan.  9:9 6  Acts  5  :  31. 1  Gr.  Child 2  OT,pattet 


6,  7.  The  complaint  and  challenge  is,  ac- 
cording to  the  best  text,  "  Why  doth  this  man 
speak  thus  ?  He  blasphemeth :  who  can  for- 
give sins  but  God  alone?"  It  came  from  cer- 
tain of  the  scribes  who  were  sitting  there. 
Doubtless  they  were  narrow-minded  and  un- 
sympatlietic,  but  can  we  blame  them  for  this 
amazement  and  horror?  Tliey  understood  him 
to  claim  the  divine  prerogative,  the  incom- 
municable authority,  and  how  could  they  fail 
to  be  scandalized?  Indeed,  until  they  knew 
by  what  right  he  made  the  claim  it  was  proper 
for  them  to  be  scandalized.  Perhaps  by  this 
time  they  ought  to  have  known :  at  any  rate, 
after  this  they  ouglit;  but  until  they  knew 
they  could  not  have  felt  otherwise.  The  com- 
plaint does  not  seem  to  have  been  addressed  to 
Jesus,  yet  it  appears  not  to  have  been  entirely 
unspoken.  It  was  passed  around  among  them- 
selves, in  their  own  circle,  perhaps  in  whispers, 
and  was  certainly  expressed  on  their  dark  faces. 
The  solemnity  of  Jesus'  manner,  and  perhaps 
his  manifest  joyfulness,  may  well  have  kept 
the  charge  of  blasphemy  from  direct  and  open 
utterance. 

8,  9.  Mark  plainly  intends  to  represent  that 
Jesus  had  direct  knowledge  of  their  thoughts. 
As  he  had  seen  the  spiritual  state  of  the  sick 
man,  so  lie  saw  the  hearts  of  these  objectors. 
He  perceived  in  his  spirit  that  they  were 
reasoning  thus.  The  word  immediately  re- 
minds us  whose  record  we  are  reading ;  it  is  a 
characteristic  word. — The  introductory  ques- 
tion. Why  reason  ye  these  things  in  your 
hearts  ?  seems  to  indicate  that  tliere  was 
something  in  the  circumstances  that  might 
have  kept  them,  from  their  point  of  view, 
from  wondering  and  complaining  at  his  words. 
What  was  it?  It  seems  to  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  tlicy  expected  of  him  the  word  "  Arise 
and  walk,"  or  some  similar  word  of  power. 
They  were  looking  for  a  word  of  healing  that 
would  be  eitlier  proved  to  be  a  word  of  real 
power  or  exposed  as  a  vain  assumption  by 
what  followed  it.  But  now  he  reasoned  with 
them. — Whether  is  it  easier,  to  say  to  the 


sick  of  the  palsy — the  paralytic — Thy  sins 
be  forgiven  thee;  or  to  say,  Arise,  and 
take  up  thy  bed,  and  Avalk? — i.  e.  "  Looking 
with  your  eyes  of  unbelief,  you  ought  not  to 
wonder,  for  I  have  spoken  a  word  which,  as  a 
word,  is  easier  to  speak  than  the  one  that  you 
were  expecting.  It  is  easier  to  announce  present 
pardon  of  sins  than  to  announce  present  heal- 
ing of  sickness,  because  there  is  no  one  who 
can  convict  me  of  falsehood  if  I  sjieak  false- 
hood ;  whereas  every  beholder  could  convict 
me  of  falsehood  if  the  man  did  not  arise  when 
I  bade  him."  Observe  that  he  did  not  bring 
into  comparison  the  two  works  themselves, 
healing  and  pardon,  and  ask  which  is  the 
easier  work,  but  only  the  announcement  of 
the  two,  asking  wliich  is  the  easier  announce- 
ment. From  his  point  of  view,  and  with  his 
knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  his  words,  it 
would  be  infinitely  harder  to  say  what  he  had 
said,  if  he  had  not  the  right  to  say  it;  but  from 
their  point  of  view,  and  with  their  half  doubt 
of  his  sincerity,  they  need  not  have  wondered 
that  he  had  spoken  the  easier  word. 

10,  11.  But  in  reality  it  was  not  a  question 
of  saying,  but  of  doing — not  what  words  he 
could  speak,  but  what  power  he  had.  They 
said  he  had  blasphemed.  Had  he?  Was  he 
trifling  with  God  and  men  when  he  said,  Thy 
sins  be  forgiven?  "I  wish  you  to  know,"  he 
said,  "  that  I  have  power  to  do  the  deed  of  par- 
don as  well  as  to  announce  it.  It  is  a  diviner 
deed  than  tlie  act  of  healing,  but  it  cannot  be 
attested  to  tlie  senses  as  healing  can  ;  therefore 
I  will  take  the  act  of  healing  for  the  test.  Let 
the  visible  deed  of  divine  power  be  the  proof 
of  mj'^  authority  to  exercise  the  divine  prerog- 
ative in  the  invisible  realm  of  the  spirit,  in 
order  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  man 
hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins."  The 
word  "authority,"  however,  is  better  than 
power.  The  claim  is  that  authority  has  been 
given  to,  or  resides  in,  the  Son  of  man,  the 
Messiah,  to  forgive,  and  that  this  authority  is 
now  present  in  his  person  on  earth,  there  to 
be  exercised  at  his  will  and  pleasure,  and  the 


Ch.  II.] 


MARK. 


35 


11  I  say  unto  thee,  Arise,  and  take  up  thy  bed,  and  11  palsy),  I  say  unto  thee.  Arise,  take  up  thy  'bed,  and 
go  thy  way  into  thiue  house.  12  go  unto  thy  house.     And  he  arose,  and  straightway 

12  And  immediately  he  arose,  took  up  the  bed,  and  took  up  the  'bed,  and  went  forth  before  llieni  all: 
Went  forth  before  them  all;  insomuch  that  they  were  i  insomuch  that  they  were  all  amazed,  and  gloriiied 
all  amazed,  and  glorified  Uod,  saying.  We"  never  saw  j       God,  saying.  We  never  saw  it  on  this  fashion. 

it  on  this  fashion. 


1  John  7  :  31 ;  9  :  32.- 


-1  Or,  paUet 


results  to  be  made  known,  if  he  so  wills  it,  at 
once  to  the  men  who  are  forgiven.  It  was 
conceded  that  sins  might  be  forgiven,  but  only 
by  God,  as  all  agreed,  and  by  him  only  in 
heaven,  his  dwelling-place,  from  which  there 
w;us  no  way  to  make  the  act  clearly  known  to 
the  siinier.  But  Jesus  claimed  that  the  author- 
ity wiis  on  earth  in  himself— a  tremendous 
claim.  The  language  is  closely  similar  to  that 
of  John  5  :  27,  where  the  claim  of  "  authority 
to  execute  judgment"  is  made  in  tlie  same 
manner,  in  connection  with  the  assertion  of 
power  to  raise  the  dead  and  to  quicken  the 
spiritually  lifeless.  It  is  not  improbable  that 
this  utterance  at  Capernaum  was  intended  to 
recall  the  earlier  discourse  at  Jerusalem  to  the 
menn)ry  of  some  now  present  who  liad  heard 
it,  or  heard  of  it,  there — a  discourse  either  un- 
utterably rich  or  horribly  profane  in  claims  of 
divine  prerogative.  Here  it  is  tlie  Messiah  on 
the  human  side,  the  Son  of  man,  who  claims 
the  authority ;  there  he  had  claimed  divine 
prerogative  both  as  Son  of  man  and  as  Son  of 
God.  So,  if  there  was  an  implied  reference  to 
the  previous  discourse,  it  may  have  brought 
back  the  remembrance  of  still  bolder  assump- 
tions.— And  now,  "  in  order  that  ye  may  know 
that  authority  to  forgive  sins  is  actually  present, 
to  be  exercised  not  merely  in  the  unseen  heaven, 
but  on  the  earth,  by  me,  the  Son  of  man,  the 
Christ  of  God  in  humanity," — after  this  tre- 
mendous prelude  comes  the  act.  He  saith  to 
the  iiaralytic,  I  say  unto  thee,  Arise,  take 
up  thy  bed,  and  go  thy  way  into  thine 
house. 

12.  If  the  effect  of  the  first  mightj'  word  was 
invisible,  not  so  was  the  effect  of  this.  "  His 
Word  was  with  power."  Mark's  description 
contains  little  that  is  peculiar,  yet  it  is  perhaps 
the  most  graphic  of  them  all.  And  imme- 
diately he  arose,  took  up  the  bed,  and 
went  forth  before  them  all.  The  pop- 
ular effect  is  emphatically  re]iresented  in  all  the 
reports,  and  there  is  no  mention  in  any  of  them 
of  any  indignation  or  horror.  Apparently  it 
wa.s  as  at  Acts  4  :  14,  where  the  presence  of  the 
living  proof  silenced  the  cavils.  Later  in  our 
Lord's  ministry',  when  the  opposition  was  more 
develojied,  that  would  not  have  kept  them 
back  :  and  even  now,  undoubtedlv,  there  was 


smouldering  indignation,  at  least  in  many  of 
those  who  were  spiritually  prepared  to  see  no 
good  in  him.  But  the  man  himself  "  went  to 
his  house  glorifying  God  "  (Luke),  .satisfied  with 
his  mercy  in  adoul)Ie  degree,  blessed  with  health 
of  body  and  with  the  deeper  healing  of  the  soul. 
After  his  other  utterance  of  the  pardoning 
word,  Jesus  added  (Luke  7 :  so),  literally,  "  Go  imto 
peace" — let  the  lot  and  life  to  which  thou  goest 
be  peace ;  and  unto  peace  we  may  well  think 
that  this  man  \vent.  The  question  arises.  Did 
the  miracle  thoroughly  and  legitimately  prove 
the  power  to  forgive?  The  answer  is,  (1)  to 
the  beholders,  yes.  It  was  an  armimentum  ad 
hominem  of  the  most  unanswerable  kind.  It 
was  a  direct  exertion  of  superhuman  power, 
expressly  offered  as  proof  of  the  divine  au- 
thority in  question.  No  one  doubted  the  reality 
of  the  healing,  or  its  quality  as  a  work  of  benef- 
icence, or  the  claim  that  it  was  divine  power 
that  wrought  it.  Hence  no  one  who  saw  it  was 
in  a  situation  to  deny  the  claim  in  support  of 
which  the  miracle  was  performed.  After  it  the 
beholders  ought  to  have  felt  that  the  earth  was 
now  blessed  and  consecrated  by  the  presence  of 
divinity.  (2)  To  us  who  read  of  it,  also  yes.  If 
it  could  be  proved  that  Je.^us  was  a  deceiver,  a 
dislionest  man,  it  would  not  be  so ;  but  if  it  can 
be  shown  that  Jesus  was  no  deceiver,  but  a 
truly  honest  man.  then  it  is  so.  This  was 
either  a  fraud  or  an  honest  transaction.  If 
Jesus  was  merely  acting  honestly  as  a  man, 
leaving  aside  all  questions  of  his  divinity,  the 
miracle  proved  that  in  sujiport  of  a  superhuman 
claim  he  could  invoke  the  action  of  superhu- 
man power.  It  was  therefore  a  confirmation 
of  his  claim.  But  we  most  joyfully  confess 
that  to  us  who  know  his  character  such  a 
miracle  adds  nothing  to  our  confidence  in  his 
word.  We  believe  him  that  he  is  in  the 
Father  and  the  Father  in  him.  because  in 
seeing  him  we  have  "seen  the  Father;"  and 
so  we  are  not  shut  up  to  believing  him  "  for 
the  very  works'  sake"  (John  u:n).  He  is  the 
great  miracle,  and  to  those  who  know  him  he 
is  self-evidencing. 

Of  the  three  narratives  of  this  event  it  may 
be  noted  that  they  well  illustrate  the  relation 
of  the  three  evangelists  to  one  another.  The 
three  narratives  tell  the  same  storv  without  the 


36 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IL 


13  And  he  went  forth  again  by  the  sea-side ;  and  all 
the  multitude  resorted  unto  hiiu,  and  he  taught  them. 

14  And"  as  he  passed  by,  he  saw  Levi  the  sun  of  Al- 

Eheus  sitting  at  the  receipt  of  custom,  and  said  unto 
im,  Follow  me.    And  he  arose  and  followed  him. 


13  And  he  went  forth  again  by  the  sea  side ;  and  all 
the   multitude  resorted   uuto   him,  and   he   taught 

14  them.     And  as  he  passed  by,  he  saw  Levi  the  son 
of  Alpha;us  sitting  at  the  place  of  toll,  and  he  saith 


a  Matt.  9:9;  Luke  5  :  27. 


slightest  essential  variation ;  and  yet  whoever 
compares  them  in  a  Greek  harmony,  or  even  in 
an  English  harmony,  will  see  that  in  a  multi- 
ttide  of  points,  as  to  manner  of  telling  the  story, 
they  differ.  The  ditferences  are  not  such  as  to 
make  the  slightest  difficulty,  but  they  are  so 
real  and  living  as  to  illustrate,  as  nothing  but 
differences  could,  the  independence  of  the 
writers.  Each  evangelist  has  his  own  word 
for  "bed,"  Mark's  word  being  krabbatos,  which 
is  one  of  his  Latinisms.  The  word  is  simply 
the  Latin  word  grahatus  in  Greek  form — a  word 
that  is  said  to  have  been  condemned  (as  a  Greek 
word)  by  the  grammarians,  who  regarded  it  as 
a  low  word  or  a  word  used  only  by  the  ignorant. 
It  has  been  taken — and  j^robably  not  without 
reason — as  one  of  the  evidences  of  the  low 
social  and  intellectual  grade  of  many  of  the 
Gentile  Christians,  for  whom  Mark  wrote  his 
Gospel. 

13-17.  THE  CALL  OF  LEVI,  AND  HIS 
FEAST.  Parallels,  Matt.  9  :  9-13  ;  Luke  5  :  27-32. 
•^This  narrative  immediately  follows,  in  all  the 
Gospels. 

13,  14,  By  the  sea-side.  In  front  of  the 
town,  or  near  it.  There  the  crowd  again  gath- 
ered about  him,  and  we  have  again  to  wish 
for  a  record  that  was  never  made  of  the  "  gra- 
cious words  that  proceeded  out  of  his  mouth." 
Matthew  and  Mark  both  note  that  it  was  as  he 
passed  by  that  he  saw  this  man  who  became 
his  disciple. — Levi.  So  called  here  and  in 
Luke;  in  the  first  Gospel,  Matthew;  and  so 
always  in  the  lists  of  apostles.  But  tlie  pecu- 
liar way  of  approaching  the  man's  name  in  Matt. 
9 : 9,  together  with  the  use  of  the  word  legmmmon, 
"  called,"  seems  to  indicate  a  change  of  name. 
"Matthew"  means  "gift  of  God."  The  name 
may  have  been  given  him  by  Jesus,  as  the  sitr- 
name"  Peter"  was  given  to  Simon;  and  pos- 
sibly the  odiousness  of  the  old  occupation  is 
silently  commemorated  in  the  fact  that  the 
name  that  belonged  to  the  publican  period  of 
his  life  was  wholly  drojiped,  and  he  appeared 
afterward  simply  as  ^Matthew,  not  as  LeAi- 
Matthew.  (Compare  Simon-Peter.)  By  Mark 
alone  is  he  called  the  son  of  Alphseus.  There 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  this  was  any  other 
Alphajus  than  the  one  who  is  referred  to  in 
all  the  lists  of  the  apostles  where  we  have 
"  James  the  son  of  Alphasus."     In  three  of  the 


lists  he  stands  next  after  Matthew  and  Thomas. 
Matthew  and  James  are  thus  presumably  broth- 
ers ;  and  if,  as  is  almost  certain,  Thomas  was 
the  twin-brother  of  Matthew,  Alphteus  was  the 
father  of  three  of  the  twelve.  If  the  word 
"  brother  "  is  rightly  supplied  before  "  of  James  " 
in  Luke  6  :  16  ("Judas  the  brother  of  James"), 
he  may  have  been  the  father  of  four. — At  the 
receipt  of  custom — i.  e.  at  the  custom-house 
of  the  town,  which  is  thus  said  to  have  been 
located  by  the  shore  of  the  lake,  a  natural  place 
for  it,  since  the  trade  of  the  town  was  so  largely 
in  fish.  "  Sitting  at  the  receipt  of  custom,"  at 
his  desk  or  table,  actually  in  his  place  of  busi- 
ness as  a  publican.  The  real  publica7ius,  in  Ro- 
man usage,  was  the  man  of  the  Roman  knights 
who  undertook  to  pay  a  certain  sum  into  the 
public  treasury  (in  ^;tt&?/ciim,)  as  an  equivalent 
for  the  taxes  of  a  province.  Sometimes  he  rep- 
resented himself  alone,  and  sometimes  a  joint- 
stock  company  formed  for  the  purpose.  This 
man  usually  resided  in  Rome,  but  in  his  prov- 
ince he  had  chief  assistants  (of  whom  Zac- 
chfeus  may  have  been  one),  and  lower  repre- 
sentatives in  everj'  town,  to  collect  directly  from 
the  people.  These  collectors  were  usually  na- 
tives of  the  province,  because  these  would  best 
have  access  to  the  people ;  and  these  are  the 
publicans  (telonai)  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
system  was  a  wretched  one,  giving  abundant 
opportunities  for  extortion.  The  chief  puhli- 
canus  had  only  one  object — to  collect  as  much 
as  possible ;  and  there  was  no  redress  for  his 
extortions,  the  government  having  been  already 
satisfied  for  the  taxes  and  claiming  nothing  to 
do  with  the  collection  of  them.  The  local  pub- 
licans were  the  more  odious  to  the  Jews,  because 
their  presence  was  a  continual  reminder  of  the 
national  humiliation  and  a  seeming  proof  that 
Jehovah  had  given  over  his  land  to  the  oppressor. 
Moreover,  they  were  often  no  better  than  they 
were  expected  to  l)e,  and  deserved  much  of  the 
opprobrium  that  was  heaped  upon  them. 

In  the  case  of  this  man  we  have  no  traces  of 
any  previous  acquaintance  between  him  and 
Jesus.  But  (1)  he  may  have  heard  the  discourse 
of  verse  13  ;  (2)  one  or  more  of  his  brothers  may 
already  have  become  attached  to  Jesus,  and  Levi 
may  himself  have  begun  to  incline  toward  him  ; 
(3)  he  may  have  been  among  the  publicans  who 
were  baptized  by  John  (Luke 3: 12,  is;  t: 29),  and, 


Ch.  II.] 


MARK. 


37 


15  Ando  it  came  to  pass,  that,  as  Jesus  sat  at  meat  in 
his  house,  many  publicans''  and  sinners  sat  also  to- 
gctlier  with  Jesus  and  his  disciples:  for  there  were 
many,  and  they  followed  him. 

16  And  when  the  scribes  and  rharisces  saw  him  eat 
with  publicans  and  sinners,  they  said  unto  his  disci- 

{)les,  1-Iow  is  it  that  he  eateth  and  driuketh  with  pub- 
icans  and  sinners? 

17  When  Jesus  heard  it,  he  saith  unto  them,  They<^ 
that  are  whole  have  no  need  of  the  physician,  but  they 
that  are  sick  :  I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sin- 
ners'' to  rei>entance. 


15  unto  him,  Follow  me.  And  he  arose  and  followed 
him.  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  he  was  sitting  at 
meat  in  his  house,  and  many  'publicans  and  sin- 
ners sat  down    with   Jesus  and   his  disciples:   for 

16  there  were  many,  and  they  followed  him.  And  the 
scribes  -of  the  Pharisees,  when  they  saw  that  he 
was  eating  with  the  sinners  and  publicans,  said 
unto  his  disciples,  Hia  eateth  <and  driuketh  with 

17  publicans  and  sinners.  And  when  Jesus  heard  it, 
he  sailh  unto  them,  They  that  are  ^wholc  have  no 
need  of  a  physician,  but  they  that  are  sick  :  1  came 
not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners. 


oMatt.  9  :  10,  etc 6  Luke  15  :  1-5 c  Matt.  9  :  12,  13  ;  Luke  5  :  .SI.  32 d  Isa.  1  :  18;  55  :  7  ;  Matt.  18  :  11 :  Luke  19  :  10  ;  1  Cor.  6  :9  11  ; 

I  Tim.  I  :  15. 1  That  is,  coUectort  or  renters  of  Roman  taxes:  aud  su  elsewhere 2  Some  aucient  authorities  read  and  the  PKar- 

i«ee«....3  Or,  How  is  it  that  he  eateth  ...  sinners  T 1  Some  aucieut  autliorilies  omit  and  drmJfcef/i.... 5  Gr.  afrony. 


who  were  taught  by  him  to  do  the  work  of  a 
publican  without  extortion.  There  is"  nothing 
improbable  in  this  last  supposition.  In  any 
ca.se,  he  was  in  a  thoughtful,  penitent  state, 
ready  to  abandon  the  life  of  sin  at  the  Master's 
call. — Tlie  invitation  Follow  me  must  even 
then  have  been  felt  to  imply  something  of  se- 
lection on  tlie  part  of  Jesus,  and  something  of 
honor  to  him  who  received  it.  The  publican 
may  have  welcomed  with  wondering  joy  an 
invitation  for  which  ho  had  scarcely  dared  to 
hope. — He  arose  and  followed  him.  Luke 
adds  that  he  "  left  all."  Doubtless  it  was  not 
much,  but  it  wan  all.  His  life  was  in  his  work, 
and  so  was  his  living ;  but  the  new  IMaster  had 
tivken  liold  of  his  heart,  and  he  was  content  to 

go- 

15.  It  is  Luke  who  says  that  "  Levi  made  liim 
a  great  feast  in  his"  (Levi's)  "  house,"  perhaps, 
though  not  necessarily,  on  the  same  day.  In 
Matthew  the  allusion  (to  the  great  feast)  is 
omitted,  which  has  been  noted  as  a  natural  mark 
if  Matthew  was  the  author  of  the  Gospel  that 
bears  his  name.  He  says  also  that  "  he  was  at 
table  in  the  house,"  which  has  been  noted  as 
Matthew's  way  of  referring  to  his  own  house. 
Jesus  sat  at  meat  in  his  house.  Here  the 
translators  introduced  the  name  of  Jesus  with- 
out indicating  that  it  was  an  inserted  word ;  and 
so  obscured,  or  rather  misreproscnted,  the  sense. 
Tischendorf's  text  reads  thus  :  "  And  it  came  to 
pass  that  he  was  reclining  at  table  in  his  house; 
and  many  jmblicans  and  sinners  were  reclining 
with  Jesus  and  his  disciples ;  for  there  were 
many,  and  scribes  of  the  Pharisees  were  also 
following  him."  "  He,"  most  naturally,  is  the 
man  last  mentioned — namely,  Levi.  He  was  at 
his  own  table ;  the  presence  of  Jesus  and  his  dis- 
ciples with  him  there  is  in  the  writer's  mind 
from  the  first,  but  is  mentioned  only  in  an  in- 
direct way  and  by  implication.  Jesus  was  the 
centre  of  the  company  ;  the  guests  were  largely 
of  Levi's  own  cla.'ss.  tiie  publicans,  with  whom 
the  respectable  would  not  associate ;  and,  as  it 
often  happens  in  that  land,  besides  the  invited  ! 


guests  there  were  others  who  came  in,  many  of 
whom  were  of  the  abandoned  chisses  in  the 
town.  With  the  publicans  the.se  were  famil- 
iarly at  home. 

16.  The  scribes  and  Pharisees.  Tischen- 
dorfs  text  reads,  "  The  scribes  of  the  Pliari.sees." 
They  were  representatives  of  the  law  in  its  ex- 
treme strictness.  The  practice  of  the  scribes — 
copyists  and  expounders — tended  to  literalism 
and  precision,  and  the  self-righteous  sj>irit  of 
the  Pharisees  excluded  mercy.  Probably  among 
these  were  the  scribes  who  had  witnessed  the 
healing  of  the  paralytic,  and  who  ever  since 
may  have  been  meditating  with  less  and  less 
pleasure  on  what  Jesus  was  doing.  Scribes 
would  not  enter  the  house  of  Levi,  and  we  can 
imagine  their  scorn  as  they  stood  outside  and 
saw  the  Rabl>i  within  at  the  same  table  with 
publicans  and  sinners.  Their  criticism  was  ad- 
dressed to  the  disciples  who  were  nearest  them. 
The  complaint  is  the  same  as  the  one  to  which 
we  are  indebted  for  the  group  of  parables  in  the 
fifteenth  chapter  of  lAike — a  group  so  rich  as 
almost  to  reconcile  us  to  the  existence  of  the 
cavil. 

17.  The  answer  here  is  briefer,  but  not  less 
characteristic  and  decisive.  It  may  be  thus  ren- 
dered :  "  No  need  have  the  strong  of  a  physician, 
but  they  that  are  sick.  I  came  not  to  call  right- 
eous persons,  but  sinners."  To  repentance  is 
an  addition  that  has  scarcely  any  manu.^cript 
authority  here,  and  no  sufficient  authority  in 
Mattliew.  The  words  stand  unquestioned  in 
Luke,  whence  copyists  have  introduced  them 
in  Matthew  and  Mark.  In  this  reply  our  Lord 
first  describes  his  own  work  figuratively — as  a 
work  of  healing — and  the  most  natural  of  all 
statements  is  made — namely,  that  such  service 
is  only  for  the  sick ;  tlie  strong  have  no  need 
of  it,  an  allusion,  perliaps,  to  the  recent  work 
of  healing;  in  any  ca.^e,  a  characterizing  of  his 
own  mission  in  a  very  different  tone  from  all 
that  they  would  expect  —  a  distinct  assertion 
that  his  conduct  was  determined  by  reference 
to  the  purpose  of  a  Healer  of  souls,  and,  plain- 


38 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IL 


18  And  the  disciples  of  John  and  of  the  Pharisees 
vised  to  fast:  and  they  come  and  say  unto  him,  Why  do 
the  disciples  of  Jolm  and  of  the  Pharisees  fast,  but  thy 
Tiisciples  fast  not  ? 


18  And  John's  disciples  and  the  Pharisees  were  fast- 
ing :  and  they  come  and  say  unto  him,  Why  do 
John's  disciples  and  the  disciples  of  the  Pharisees 


ly,  of  individual  souls.  It  is  simply  and  un-  j 
qualifiedly  as  a  physician  that  he  announces 
himself.  How  could  he  more  deeply  surprise 
the  men  of  national  asi^irations  in  his  time? 
But  next  he  describes  his  own  work  more  lit- 
erally— as  a  work  of  calling.  Here  the  same 
feeling  appears  as  in  the  tigurative  descriiJtion  : 
mercy  and  lielj)fulness  are  still  the  great  con- 
siderations ;  the  needy  are  lii'st  to  be  remem- 
bered :  "  I  came  not  to  call  righteous  persons, 
but  sinners."  It  is  not  the  righteous,  by 
which  form  of  speech  the  Pharisees  may  con- 
ceivably have  been  free  to  suppose  that  they 
were  alluded  to  under  an  honorable  name. 
The  contrast  is  not  at  all  between  designated 
individuals,  but  between  characters— righteous 
men  and  sinful  men.  Not  less  than  before 
would  he  now  surprise  the  men  of  Israel.  To 
call  sinners,  and  not  the  righteous?  How  could 
any  one  so  speak  who  had  any  sympathy  with 
the  God  of  Israel,  who  was  righteous  and  loved 
righteousness  ?  Such  would  be  the  first  thought ; 
but  the  deeper  and  truer  thought,  more  full  of 
divinity,  is  that  the  righteous  God  so  loves 
righteousness  as  to  wish  to  put  sin  away. 
Hence,  in  the  mission  of  his  great  Messenger, 
the  call  is  to  sinners  ;  it  is  the  lost  sheep  that  is 
sought.  The  religionists  of  that  day  recognized 
God's  love  for  righteousness  (as  many  men  do) 
far  enough  to  feel  that  God  must  love  the  right- 
eous; but  they  did  not  recognize  his  love  for 
righteousness  as  a  love  that  would  seek  to  pro- 
duce righteousness  where  it  is  not.  It  was  God 
as  loving  and  saving  the  lost  that  Jesus  had 
come  to  reveal ;  but  the  thought  was  so  con- 
trary to  the  pride  of  self-righteous  men  that 
they  were  sure  one  who  would  eat  with  publi- 
cans and  sinners  could  not  be  a  messenger  of 
God.  Observe  how  simple  and  consistent  was 
the  devotion  of  Jestis  to  his  principle.  Sinners 
were  to  be  lielped  ;  therefore  they  must  be  rec- 
ognized. Instead  of  being  despised,  they  nutst 
be  treated  like  men  and  accepted  as  companions. 
He  who  would  save  them  must  not  shrink  from 
them,  and  must  make  them  know  what  love  he 
had  for  tliem  ;  hence  Jesus  set  at  naught  all  cere- 
monial objections  to  associating  with  men  de- 
filed, and  all  social  objections  to  being  found  in 
company  with  the  despised.  He  followed  his 
saving  love  to  its  legitimate  practical  conclu- 
sions. Few  of  his  friends  have  love  enough  to 
follow  in  his  footsteps  here.  The  failure  is  often 
attributed  to  want  of  courage,  but  it  is  really  due 


to  the  want  of  love.  Love  makes  courage.  Mat- 
thew i^reflxes  to  tliis  answer  the  words  of  the 
prophet  (ho3.  6 : 6),  with  a  sharp  injuncti(m  to 
consider  them:  "But  go  and  learn  what  that 
meaneth,  I  will  have  mercy,  and  not  sacrifice." 
His  own  mission  Jesus  declares  to  be  in  the 
spirit  of  this  noble  Scripture. 

18-22.  QUESTION  AND  ANSWER  WITH 
REGARD  TO  FASTING.  Parallels,  Matt.  9  : 
14-17  ;  Luke  5  :  33-39. — It  is  commonly  assumed 
that  this  questioning  occurred  at  Matthew's  feast, 
just  as  it  is  commonly  assumed  that  the  feast 
took  place  on  the  day  of  Matthew's  call.  It  ia 
not  certain,  however,  that  the  feast  was  made 
at  once,  and  it  is  not  certain — though  it  seems 
probable — that  the  conversation  about  fasting 
went  on  around  INIatthew's  table.  Matthew 
(9 :  18)  expressly  places  it  in  connection  with  the 
coming  of  Jairus  to  ask  for  restoration  for  his 
daughter.  In  any  arrangement  the  harmony  is 
attended  with  ditticulties.  Possibly,  as  Gardi- 
ner suggests  [Greek  Harmony,  p.  42),  the  Lord 
met  the  same  objections  more  than  once,  and 
more  than  once  answered  them  in  the  same  way ; 
in  which  case  the  different  reports  may  have 
come  from  different  occasions.  But  the  interest 
and  value  of  what  he  said  is  not  dependent  on 
our  ability  to  refer  it  exactly  to  its  actual  time 
and  place.  These  utterances  are  singularly  in- 
dependent of  suggesting  circumstances. 

18.  The  speakers,  in  Luke,  are  indeterminate; 
in  Matthew,  expressly  the  disciples  of  John  ;  in 
Mark,  apparently  those  who  have  been  observ- 
ing the  disciples  of  John  and  the  Pharisees : 
various  ways  of  introducing  a  question  sug- 
gested by  the  practice  from  which  Jesus  de- 
parted. Used  to  fast.  Translate,  "The  dis- 
ciples of  John,  and  the  Pharisees,  were  fasting" 
— i.  e.  at  the  time  of  the  question.  It  was  one 
of  their  fast-days.  John  himself  was  in  prison, 
but  this  reference  proves  that  his  disciples  kept 
together  as  a  body  by  themselves  during  the 
ministry  of  Jesus.  (See  also  Luke  7  :  18 ;  Matt. 
14  :  12.)  It  proves  also  that  their  observances 
had  much  in  conmion  with  those  of  the  Phar- 
isees. John  intended  that  the  spirit  of  all  that 
sprang  from  his  influence  should  be  utterly  un- 
like, that  of  the  Pharisees,  and  perhaps  his  dis- 
ciples were  not  Pharisaic  in  heart ;  but  when 
his  personal  influence  was  removed  they  re- 
mained a  kind  of  intermediate  body  between 
the  old  and  the  new.  The  Pharisees  fasted  on 
the  second  and  fifth  days  of  the  week  (compare 


Ch.  IL] 


MARK. 


39 


19  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Can  the  children  of 
the  bride-chamber  fast,  while  the  bridegrooin"  is  with 
tliuuiV  As  lung  as  they  have  the  bridegroom  with 
them,  they  cannot  fast. 

20  But  the  days  will  come  when  the  bridegroom 
shall  be  taken  away  from  them,  and  then'  shall  they 
fast  in  those  days. 

21  No  man  also  seweth  a  piece  of  new  cloth  on  an 
old  garment:  else  the  new  piece  that  filled  it  up  taketh 
away  from  the  old,  and  the  rent  is  made  worse. 


19  fast,  but  thy  disciples  fast  not?  And  Jesus  said 
unto  them.  Can  the  sons  of  the  bride-chamber  fast, 
while  the  bridegroom  is  with  them?  as  long  as  they 
have  the  bridegroom  with  them,  they  cannot  fast. 

20  But  the  days  will  come,  when  the  bridegroom  shall 
be  taken  away  from  them,  and  then  will  they  fast 

21  in  that  day.  No  man  seweth  a  jiiece  of  undressed 
cloth  on  an  old  garment :  else  that  which  should  till  it 
up  taketh  from  it,  the  new  from  the  old,  and  a  worse 


1  Matt.  25  :  1 b  .\ct3  13  :  Z. 


Luke  18  :  12),  and  this  allusion  makes  it  seem 
probable  that  the  custom  of  John's  followers 
was  the  same.  In  Luke  there  is  an  additional 
reference  to  the  "  making  of  prayers  "  as  a  com- 
mon trait  of  the  Pharisees  and  John's  disciples. 
{Comi)are  Luke  11  :  1,  where  it  is  implied  that 
John  had  taught  to  his  disciples  some  forms  of 
prayer.) — But  thy  disciples  fast  not.  The 
words  might  mean  "are  not  fasting" — /.  e.  to- 
day, as  the  questioners  are — but  naturally  they 
have  a  wider  meaning,  and  indicate  that  fasting 
was  not  an  element  in  the  life  of  the  disciples 
of  Jesus.  The  words  do  not  prove  that  he  had 
forbidden  fasting,  but  they  do  prove  that  the 
life  of  his  followers,  as  observed  by  others,  did 
n(jt  contain  this  element. 

19,  20.  The  question  is  answered  in  all  three 
reports  exactly  as  if  asked,  as  in  Matthew,  by 
John's  di.sciples.  There  is  no  severity  in  the 
reply — a  fiict  that  indicates  honesty  in  the  in- 
quirers. The  first  part  of  the  answer  is  dis- 
tinctly an  ai-(nimcnUim  ad  hominem  to  those  who 
reverenced  John  and  ri'memi)ered  his  words. 
Can  the  children  of  the  bride-chamber — 
the  attendants  in  the  festivities  of  the  wedding 
— fast  \yliilc — as  long  as — the  bridegroom 
is  with  them?  See  John  3:2!),  where  the 
Bajjtist  called  Jesus  the  bridegroom  and  spoke 
of  himself  as  the  "  friend  of  the  bridegroom," 
whose  ollice  it  was  to  arrange  the  marriage-feast 
and  bring  the  bridegroom  and  the  bride  together. 
Here  is  a  "cross-reference"  between  the  synop- 
tists  and  the  fourtli  Gospel,  ailording  one  of  the 
interesting  examples  of  undesigned  coincidence 
that  have  proved  so  valuable  in  illustrating  and 
confirming  the  evangelical  record.  The  synop- 
tists  allude  to  a  remark  of  the  Bai)tist  that  is 
recorded  only  in  the  Gospel  of  John.  "  This  is 
the  time,"  says  Jesus  to  John's  disciples,  "to 
which  your  Master  alluded,  when  the  bride- 
groom should  be  present  among  his  friends." 
For  his  own  part,  he  withdrew,  confessing  that 
the  union  that  he  had  sought  to  bring  to  pass 
was  now  about  to  be  formed :  the  bridegroom 
was  now  to  have  the  bride,  the  Christ  and  his 
people  were  coming  together.  He  said  that 
in  this  very  thing  liis  own  joy,  as  tlie  bride- 


groom's friend,  was  completed.  How,  then, 
should  there  be  fasting — the  sign  of  sorrow — 
"  while  the  l)ridegroom  is  among  his  friends  at 
the  marriage"?  In  this  reply  there  is  a  sliarp 
though  kindly  appeal  to  those  who  had  learned 
of  John  :  why  had  they  not  learned  tins  of  him? 
and  why  sliould  they  not  be,  as  he  would  liave 
them,  among  tliose  who  were  rejoicing  in  the 
bridegroom's  presence?  Should  they  be  found 
in  sympathy  with  the  Pharisees,  rather  than 
with  the  followers  of  him  whom  their  teacher 
had  announced?  Yet  this  was  not  the  whole 
matter.  Even  for  the  children  of  the  bride- 
chamber  fasting  was  not  impossible.  Neither 
they  nor  those  who  beheld  them  must  suppose 
that  they  had  to  come  to  the  final  joy.  The 
bridegroom  was  with  them,  but  not  yet  to  re- 
main for  ever. — Days  will  come  when  the 
bridegroom  shall  be  taken  away  from 
them.  A  tragic  outlook,  and  the  earliest  re- 
corded intimation  of  such  sorrow  to  come.  Two 
or  three  hints  there  had  been  in  his  early  dis- 
courses at  Jerusalem,  as  John  2  :  19  and  3  :  14, 
but  they  were  not  distinct  and  likely  to  be  un- 
derstood at  the  time.  Here,  however,  was  an 
indication  that  the  presence  of  Jesus  was  not 
to  contiime  witli  his  friends,  and  one  that  they, 
if  they  were  thoroughly  attentive,  might  un- 
derstand and  treasure  up.  It  was  implied,  too, 
that  this  removal  from  the  midst  of  them  should 
be  a  sad  rather  than  a  glorious  removal. — Then 
shall  they  fast  in  those  days,  but  "in  that 
day,"  according  to  the  best  te.xt;  Luke,  "in 
those  days."  The  sorrow  of  the  disciples  at 
tlie  removal  of  their  Lord  by  death  should  find 
suitable  expression  in  fasting,  but  while  he  was 
among  them  such  a  sign  of  sorrow  would  be  as 
incongruous  as  fasting  amid  tlie  festivities  of 
the  wedding.  Observe  that  in  this  answer  fast- 
ing is  regarded  altogether  as  an  expression  of 
sorrow,  and  not  at  all  in  its  religious  connec- 
tions its  a  means  of  grace  or  as  representative 
of  a  type  of  worship. 

21,  22.  Here,  however,  our  Lord  advances 
to  the  other  view  of  fasting,  and  speaks  of  it  in 
reference  to  its  religious  significance  and  value. 
He  hits  pointed  out  the  circumstances  in  which 


40 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IL 


22  And  no  man  putteth  new  wine  into  old  bottles;  I  22  rent  is  made.     And  no  man  putteth  new  wine  into 


else  the  new  wine  doth  burst  the  bottles,  and  the  wine 
is  spilled,  and  the  bottles  will  be  marred :"  but  new 
wine  must  be  put  into  new  bottles. 


old  'wine-skins:  else  the  wine  will  burst  the  skins 
and  the  wine  perishelh,  and  the  skins :  but  Ihey  put 
new  wine  into  fresh  wine-skins. 


a  Job  32  :  19  ;  Ps.  119  : 


-1  That  is,  6kin8  used  as  bottles. 


it  will  come  in  of  itself  among  his  friends,  and 
has  allowed  it  its  due  meaning  as  an  expression 
of  sorrow.  What  other  place  and  meaning  has 
it  for  his  people?  This  question  is  answered  by 
two  illustrations.  The  first  one  Luke  calls  a 
parable ;  it  proceeds  upon  the  essential  principle 
of  parabolic  teaching  in  that  it  is  a  comparison 
instituted  for  the  purpose  of  illustration.  It  is 
by  no  means  necessary  that  a  parable  should 
have  the  form  of  a  narrative.  "  No  one  seweth 
a  patch  "  (not  merely  a  piece  ;  the  word  denotes 
something  added  or  put  on — a  patch)  "  of  un- 
fulled  cloth  "  (cloth  new,  strong,  and  liable  to 
make  a  strain  upon  what  it  is  attached  to) 
"upon  an  old  garment:  else"  (if  this  rule  of 
common  sense  is  overlooked,  and  the  un- 
fuUed  patch  is  put  on)  "  the  new  patch  of  the 
old  garment  teareth  away  from  it,  and  a  worse 
rent  is  made."  There  is  much  question  both 
about  the  text  and  about  the  construction  in 
the  latter  part  of  this,  but  there  is  little  diffi- 
3ulty  as  to  the  thought,  and  tlie  construction 
here  given  (which  is  Meyer's)  seems  to  be  the 
best :  "  And  no  one  putteth  new  wine"  (as  yet 
unfermented)  "  into  old  "  (and  weak)  "  skins  : 
else"  (if  this  rule  is  neglected)  "the  wine  will 
burst  the  skins"  (when  the  fermentation  has 
begun),  "  and  the  wine  perisheth,  and  the 
skins."  The  clause,  "  but  new  wine  must  be 
put  into  new  skins,"  is  omitted  by  Tischendorf, 
the  manuscript  evidence  being  divided.  The 
clause  is  found  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  Matthew 
adding,  "And  both  shall  be  preserved."  The 
"skins,"  or  leathern  bottles,  were  such  as  were 
constantly  in  use,  and  are  still  found  in  the 
East — hides  partly  tanned,  and  so  fastened 
together  as  to  retain  to  some  extent  the  form 
of  the  animal.  Both  illustrations  were  taken 
from  things  extremely  familiar;  and  if  these 
words  were  spoken  at  Matthew's  feast,  the 
leathern  bottles  may  possibly  have  been  in 
sight. 

The  point  in  the  use  of  the  "parables"  is 
that  the  using  of  the  ill-chosen  patch  and  the 
unsuitable  bottles  defeats  the  purj)ose  of  him 
who  resorts  to  it,  and  the  purpose  is  defeated 
because  of  an  unwise  uniting  of  the  new  with 
the  old.  The  new  is  the  living,  exj)anding, 
divinely-vigorous  kingdom  of  Clirist;  the  old 
is  that  which  pertains  to  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion, which  was  decaying  and  ready  to  vanish 


away  (Heb.  8 :  13).  The  true  use  of  a  piece  of  un- 
fulled  cloth  is  not  to  be  found  by  putting  it  as 
a  patch  on  an  old  garment,  and  the  value  of 
new  wine  will  be  destroyed  by  storing  it  in  old 
bottles.  So  the  new  life  of  Christ's  kingdom 
cannot  be  expressed  in  forms  of  the  old  dis- 
pensation :  the  forms  are  inadequate,  and  to 
use  them  is  to  defeat  the  ends  of  Christ's  king- 
dom. New  life  must  have  new  forms  of  utter- 
ance. There  is  no  system  or  set  of  institutions 
that  is  able  to  hold  the  spirit  of  the  new  age : 
that  spirit  must  make  institutions  adapted  to 
itself.  So  the  entire  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
where  it  is  affirmed  that  the  new  institutions 
are  the  fulfilment  of  the  old,  in  the  very  sense 
of  Matt.  5  :  17,  but  not  less  clearly  that  they 
are  truly  new.  The  application  here  is  to  fast- 
ing ;  and  the  thouglit  of  our  Lord  is  that  fast- 
ing belongs,  in  spirit,  to  the  old  dispensation. 
It  is  one  of  the  institutions  that  are  inadequate 
to  the  uses  of  the  new  ;  and  if  the  new  makes 
much  of  it,  it  will  be  to  the  defeating  of  its  own 
ends.  Therefore,  it  is  implied,  he  will  make  no 
attempt  to  preserve  fasting  in  his  kingdom,  as 
if  it  were  a  suitable  institution  for  liis  purpose. 
It  must  rank  with  other  means  of  religious 
culture  which  his  kingdom  has  left  behind. 

Observe  that  in  this  passage  (1)  our  Lord  as- 
signs a  place  to  fasting  as  an  expression  of  per- 
sonal sorrow.  But  the  place  that  he  thus  gives 
it  is  only  a  natural  place,  not  a  place  appointed : 
he  recognizes  fasting  as  something  that  will  oc- 
cur, but  he  does  not  call  for  it.  (2)  He  dis- 
tinctly provides  against  the  Roman  Catholic 
idea — that  his  church  is  to  be  a  fasting  church. 
If  such  had  been  his  intent,  he  could  never 
have  spoken  thus.  Nor  is  this  statement  con- 
tradicted by  the  words  of  verse  21 :  "  The  days 
come  when  the  bridegroom  shall  be  taken  away 
from  them,  and  then  shall  they  fast,  in  that 
day."  Those  words  teach  only  that  the  sorrow 
over  his  death  should  find  fit  expression  in  fast- 
ing, not  that  fasting  should  be  the  continuous 
habit  of  the  church  after  his  departure.  It  is 
not  the  teaching  of  Scripture  that  after  his  ex- 
altation the  church  was  to  be  a  widowed  church 
during  her  earthly  career,  to  whom  tears  and 
listings  should  be  the  appropriate  expressions. 
(See  Matt.  28  :  20 ;  1  Pet.  1  :  8.)  (3)  He  draws 
a  broad  distinction  between  the  old  dispensation 
and  the  new,  and  affirms  that  to  express  the 


Ch.  II.] 


MARK. 


41 


23  And"  it  came  to  pass,  that  he  went  through  the 
corn-fields  on  the  sabbath-day  ;  and  his  disciples  be- 
gan, as  they  went,  to  pluck''  the  ears  of  corn. 

24  And  the  Pharisees  said  unto  him,  Behold,  why  do 
they  on  the  sabbath-day  that  which  is  not  lawful  ? 

2")  And  he  said  unto  them.  Have  ye  never  read  what 
David  did,''  when  he  had  need,  and  was  an  hungered, 
he,  and  they  that  were  with  him? 

2(i  How  he  went  into  the  house  of  God  in  the  days 
of  Abiathar  the  high  priest,  and  did  eat  the  shew- 
bread,"*  which  is  not  lawful  to  eat  but  for  the  priests, 
and  gave  also  to  them  which  were  with  him  ? 


23  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  he  was  going  on  the  sab- 
bath day  through  the  cornfields  ;  and  his  disciples 

24  'began,  as  they  went,  to  pluck  the  ears  of  corn.  And 
the  Pharisees  said  unto  him,  Behold,  why  do  tliey 

25 on  the  sabbath  day  that  which  is  not  lawful?  And 
he  said  unto  them.  Did  ye  never  read  what  David 
did,  when  he  had  need,  and  was    an    hungred,  he, 

26  and  they  that  were  with  him?  How  he  entered 
into  the  house  of  God  -when  Abiathar  was  high 
priest,  and  did  eat  the  shewbread,  which  it  is  not 
lawful  to  eat  save  for  the  priests,  and  gave  also  to 


a  Mutt.  12  ;  1,  etc.;  Luke  6  :  1,  etc 6  Deut.  23  :  25 c  1  Sam.  21  :  6 d  Ex.  29:  32,  33:  Lev.  24  :  9. 1  Gr.  began  tot 

plucking 2  iSome  uucieut  authorities  read  tii  the  days  o/  Abiathar  the  high  priest. 


ake  their  way 


truth  and  spirit  of  the  new  in  the  terms  of  the 
old  is  not  merely  diflficult,  but  impossible.  (So 
Heb.  10:  1.)  He  must  needs  "fulfil"  before 
the  law  could  come  to  use  in  his  kingdom.  (4) 
He  gives  us  reason  to  believe  that  in  adopting 
a  cheerful  style  of  personal  life,  in  contrast  to 
the  manners  of  John  (Matt,  u:  19),  he  was  acting 
with  the  purpose  of  illustrating  the  spirit  of 
his  kingdom. 

23-28.  THE  DISCIPLES  PLUCK  EARS 
OF  GRAIN  ON  THE  SABBATH ;  OUR  LORD'S 
ANSWER  TO  QUESTIONS  CONCERNING  IT. 
Parallels,  :\Iatt.  12  :  1-8 ;  Luke  6  :  1-5. 

23.  There  is  no  hint  of  the  time  in  Matthew 
or  Mark,  except  that  it  was  on  the  Sabbath ; 
and  the  obscure  designation  in  Luke  has  proved 
to  be  one  of  the  hardest  points  in  the  Gospels. 
Gardiner :  "  Probably  it  signifies  the  first  Sab- 
bath after  the  second  day  of  unleavened  broad, 
from  which  seven  Sabbaths  were  reckoned  to 
Pentecost."  We  know,  at  least,  that  the  time 
Wiui  somewhere  between  passover  and  Pentecost, 
when  the  grain  was  ripening,  but  not  yet  har- 
vested. The  place  is  wholly  unknown,  except 
thatitwiis  in  Galilee.  He  went  through  the 
corn — grain — fields  on  the  Sabbath.  The 
word  is,  literally,  "the  sown  fiekls."  He  went 
for  some  purpose,  on  his  way  from  one  place  to 
another,  not  idly  rambling.  The  paths  in  that 
land  are  mienclosed  and  run  through  the  fields, 
a.s  illustrated  in  the  parable  of  the  Sower  (Matt. 
13 :  *) ;  so  tlie  grain  might  be  close  on  either  side 
as  tliey  walked. — His  disciples  began,  as 
they  went,  to  pluck  the  ears.  The  expres- 
sion preferred  by  some — "  his  disciples  began  to 
make  a  way  "  (or  "  to  make  their  way  ")  "  pluck- 
ing the  ears" — is  not  entirely  plain,  and  diffi- 
culties have  been  made  about  it,  as  if  they  were 
said  to  clear  a  path  through  the  grain  by  pluck- 
ing the  ears,  while  notliing  was  said  of  the 
stalks.  But  the  meaning  more  probably  is 
simply  that  as  they  took  their  course  through 
the  field  they  began  to  pluck  the  ears.  It  is  in 
Mark  tliat  we  have  this  peculiar  description,  j 
but  the  other  evangelists  are  not  less  graphic.  , 


Luke,  "  They  plucked  the  ears  and  ate,  rubbing 
them  with  their  hands"  to  free  the  grain  from 
the  husk.  The  grain  may  have  been  wheat  or 
barley. 

24,  Whence  should  the  Pharisees  be  near 
him  in  the  corn-field?  Could  he  never  escape? 
These  may  have  been  of  the  visitors  from  Jeru- 
.salem  (Luke  5:17),  wlio  had  already  heard  much 
that  they  disliked.  Why  do  they  on  the 
Sabbath  that  which  is  not  lawful?  Mat- 
thew, "Behold,  thy  disciples  are  doing  what  it 
is  not  lawful  to  do  on  the  Sabbath."  Tiiere  is 
no  indication  that  he  himself  was  engaged  in 
plucking  the  grain.  He  was  called  upon  to 
answer  for  his  disciples,  just  as  they  (verse  is) 
had  been  called  to  answer  for  him.  There  was 
no  objection  to  their  act  as  a  violation  of  the 
rights  of  property,  the  law  (oeut.  23:25)  express- 
ly permitting  such  freedom  with  tlie  standing 
com  of  another.  In  the  law  itself  there  was 
no  objection  to  their  doing  it  on  the  Sabbatli ; 
but,  according  to  the  absurd  exaggeration  of 
the  Pharisees,  it  was  a  violati(Mi  of  the  day. 
They  regarded  the  plucking  of  the  ears  as  a 
kind  of  reaping,  and  the  rubbing  off  of  the 
chaff  as  a  kind  of  threshing ;  and  reaping  and 
threshing  were,  of  course,  forbidden  on  the 
Sabbath.  Such  wa.s  the  incredibly  contempt- 
ible loitering  with  divine  requirements  with 
which  our  Saviour  liad  to  do. 

25,  26.  The  reply,  as  given  by  all  three 
evangelists,  cites  a  violation  of  sanctity  on  the 
ground  of  necessity,  and  one  in  which  tlie 
necessity,  as  now,  is  that  of  hunger.  The 
sanctity  is  not  tliat  of  the  Sabbath  alone,  but 
also  that  of  the  shew-bread  in  the  tabernacle. 
The  reference  is  to  1  Sam.  21  :  1-G :  "  In  the 
days  of  Abiathar,  the  liigh  priest ;"  the  men- 
tion of  the  name  is  peculiar  to  Mark,  and  is 
not  without  difficulty.  The  high  priest  who 
is  mentioned  in  the  original  narrative  is  not 
Abiatiiar,  but  Ahimelech,  Ids  father.  Abiathar 
succeeded  his  father  in  office  not  long  after, 
and  was  high  priest  during  David's  reign ;  so 
that  his   name  is  constantly  associated  with 


42 


MARK. 


[Ch.  II. 


27  And  he  said  unto  them,  The  sabbath  was  made  for 
nian,"  and  not'  man  for  the  sabbath  : 

28  Therefore"  the  ton  of  man  is    Lord  also  of  the 
sabbath. 


27  them  that  were  with  him?    And  he  said  unto  them, 
Tlie  sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the 

28  sabbath  :  so  that  the  Son  of  man  is  lord  even  of  the 
sabbath. 


o  Neh.  9:  14  ;  Isa.  58  :  13 ;  Ezek.  20  :  12,  20 b  Col.  2  :  16 c  John  9  :  14;  Eph.  1  :  22;  Rev.  1  :  10. 


that  of  David  in  the  history.  Various  attempts 
have  been  made  to  reconcile  tlie  difference, 
some  supposing  that  Abiathar  was  already  as- 
sistant to  his  father  at  the  time  of  David's  visit 
and  was  present  when  he  came,  although  this 
can  be  nothing  but  conjecture;  others,  that 
our  Lord  or  jNIark  was  content  with  menticju- 
ing  the  name  of  the  chief  high  priest  of  David's 
time,  and  the  one  that  was  chiefly  associated 
with  David's  name,  which  is  the  same  as  to 
say  that  absolute  accuracy  was  not  aimed  at; 
others,  that  the  name  of  Abiathar  stands  in 
the  text  of  Mark  as  the  result  of  a  copyist's 
error.  The  law  of  the  shew-bread  is  given  at 
Lev.  24  :  5-9.  Our  Lord's  argument  is  again, 
as  so  often,  an  argumentum  ad  hominem — an 
appeal  to  the  Pharisees  on  their  own  ground. 
The  visit  of  David  to  the  tabernacle  was  on  the 
Sabbath,  for  the  previous  week's  shew-bread 
was  just  being  changed  for  the  fresh,  and  tliis 
was  done  on  the  Sabbath  (i  Sam.  21  :  6  with  Lev. 
24 : 8).  So  David  violated  the  sanctity  of  the 
Sabbath  (if  the  Pharisees  were  right),  and  at 
the  same  time  the  law  that  gave  the  sacred 
bread  to  the  priests  alone.  Here  was  a  double 
violation  on  the  ground  of  necessity,  and  the 
Scriptures  nowhere  condemned  it;  nor  would 
the  Pharisees  really  condemn  it.  David  was 
no  Sabbath-breaker,  as  tliey  all  knew ;  neither 
were  liis  disciples  Sabbath-breakers  for  gather- 
ing and  eating  the  ears  of  grain.  In  Matthew 
a  second  illustration  is  added — of  the  priests 
laboring  in  the  temple  on  the  Sabbath  without 
sin ;  also  a  second  citation  of  the  Scripture 
quoted  in  verse  13 — "  I  will  have  mercy,  and 
not  sacrifice" — as  appropriate  to  tliis  case  also. 
The  principle  throughout  is  tliat  higher  re- 
quirements subordinate  lower ;  the  application 
of  the  principle,  that  necessity  and  mercy  are 
of  higher  rank  than  any  ceremonial  or  formal 
duties.  Tlie  requirement  of  "mercy"  was  a 
rebuke  to  the  spirit  of  the  faultfinders,  who 
were  very  tender  of  the  Sabbath,  but  cared 
nothing  fi  ir  the  supplying  of  the  needs  of  their 
fellow-iiien.  The  principle  of  Paul,  "Love 
worketli  no  ill  to  his  neighbor,  therefore  love 
is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law"  (Rom.  13 :  10),  was  to 
them  utterly  unknown. 

27,  28.  For  confutation  of  the  Pharisees  this 
answer  was  sufficient :  it  had  been  shown  that 
their  own  law  could  not  be  made  to  suj^port 


their  extreme  demands ;  but  the  truth  implied 
in  the  examples  that  he  had  quoted  deserved  a 
separate  statement,  and  he  seized  this  occasion 
for  the  utterance  of  one  of  the  most  important 
practical  truths  that  ever  fell  from  his  lips. 
What  relation  does  man  bear  to  the  Sabbath, 
and  the  Sabbath  to  man?  was  the  real  ques- 
tion. The  Pharisees  made  man  a  slave  to  the 
daj',  as  they  did  to  many  otlier  legal  provisions 
and  demands ;  so  there  was  need  that  he  should 
state  the  true  relation,  which  he  now  j^roceeded 
to  do.  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man, 
and  not  man  for  the  SabL>ath.  Compare 
the  original  record  of  the  Sabbath  (cen.  2:3): 
God  made  man  with  certain  powers  and  needs, 
and  then  gave  him  a  day  consecrated  to  special 
uses  to  correspond  with  those  powers  and  needs. 
The  Sabbath  was  God's  special  provision  for  the 
highest  of  his  creatures.  When  man  had  lost 
the  actual  enjoyment  of  it  through  his  sinful- 
ness, God  gave  it  to  him  again  in  the  Mosaic 
law  in  a  form  and  with  sanctions  that  might 
prove  most  favorable  to  the  final  recovery  of 
the  ideal  spiritual  Sabbath  that  sin  had  spoiled. 
But  from  first  to  last  it  was  for  the  sake  of 
man  that  it  existed,  and  it  had  no  use  except 
to  bring  to  him  the  best  blessing.  When  our 
Lord  came  the  religionists  of  his  day  had  the 
Sabbath,  and  honored  it  in  a  certain  way  :  they 
held  it  sacred,  and  bowed  down  to  it  as  if  they 
were  its  slaves.  When  he  said,  "The  Sabbath 
was  made  for  man  "— /.  c.  it  is  man's  servant, 
not  he  its  slave — his  words  were  violently  rev- 
olutionary in  their  esteem  ;  but  he  was  only  as- 
serting for  the  Sabbath  the  place  that  God  gave 
it.  The  Sabbath  is  perverted  when  it  does  not 
serve  man. 

We  might  expect  liim  to  say,  "  Therefore  man 
is  lord  of  tlie  Sabbath  ;"  but  wliat  lie  did  say  is, 
Therefore  the  Son  of  man  is  Lord  also 
of  the  Sabbath,  the  Son  of  man,  the  Mes- 
siah, viewed  in  his  relation  to  mankind.  Such 
is  its  relation  to  humanity,  and  such  is  his  rela- 
tion to  humanity,  that  he  is  its  Lord.  Compare 
Heb.  2 :  (1-9,  where  the  thought  is  that  Jesus 
is  exalted  to  his  sovereignty  as  the  representa- 
tive of  man,  and  in  fulfilment  of  the  predic- 
tions of  exaltation  that  were  made  respecting 
man.  So  here  his  relation  to  man  is  said  to 
give  into  liis  hands  and  to  place  under  his  sov- 
ereigjity  all  that  belongs  to  man  or  serves  his 


Ch.  III.] 


MARK. 


43 


CHAPTER    III. 


ND"  he  entered  again  into  the  synagogue  ;  and  there 
L  was  a  man  there  which  had  a  withered  hand. 


1      And  he  entered  again  into  the  synagogue:   and 
there  was  a  man  there  who  liad  his  liaud  witliered. 


a  Matt.  12  :  9,  etc. ;  Luke  6  :  6,  etc. 


interest.  All  man's  servants  are  his  servants. 
The  Sabbath,  having  been  appointed  for  the 
service  of  man,  comes,  by  virtue  of  that  fact, 
under  the  lordship  of  the  8on  of  man.  He  is 
its  Masiter,  Director,  Lawgiver ;  in  the  use  of  it 
men  are  responsible  to  him.  In  speaking  thus 
of  the  Sabbath  (1)  he  claimed  it  for  hmnanity. 
To  humanity  it  was  given  in  the  original  insti- 
tution, but,  for  an  educational  purpose,  it  had 
been  made  temporarily  a  national  institution 
of  the  Jews ;  and  by  the  Jews  it  had  been  made 
still  more  narrowly  a  peculiar  possession  of 
their  own.  But  now  Jesus  expressly  claimed 
it  for  the  humanity  of  which  he  was  Head, 
and  to  wliich  it  was  given  at  first.  (2)  He 
claimed  that  henceforth  the  Sabbath  should 
obey  his  will ;  his  relation  to  humanity  made 
liim  its  rightful  Lord,  and  both  because  it  was 
his  right  and  for  the  .sake  of  mankind  he  in- 
tended to  be  its  actual  Lord.  (3)  Thus  he  gave 
clear  indication  that  there  should  be  a  Sablxith 
in  his  kingdom — a  sabbatic  iii-stitution  taking 
its  law  from  him,  fulfilling  all  the  promise  that 
was  given  by  the  Jewish  institution,  and  actual- 
ly serving  man,  as  the  Creator  intended  that  the 
original  Sabbath  should.  The  Jewish  Sabbath 
had  never  fulHUed  the  ideal  of  the  day:  the 
law  could  no  more  make  a  jjcrfect  Sabbath 
than  it  could  make  a  perfect  .sacrifice  (Heb.  7  : 
19,  "The  law  made  nothing  perfect");  but 
when  the  Son  of  man,  acting  a.s  Lord  of  the 
Sabbath,  wrought  out  a  Sabbath  by  the  work- 
ing of  his  Spirit,  then  first  the  true  Sabbath  for 
man  wnuld  have  come.  The  Christian  Sabbath 
is  the  true ;  the  Jewish  wa.s  only  the  prepara- 
tory institution,  which  wa.s  not  "changed" 
into  the  Cliristian  Sal)l)ath,  but  gave  way  to  it 
by  expiring  when  its  work  was  done. 

Observe  iiow  different  his  treatment  of  the 
Sabbath  from  his  treatment  of  fasting.  He 
permits  his  friends  to  fast  when  their .  hearts 
are  so  sad  as  to  demand  it ;  but  fasting,  as  a 
religious  institution,  he  expressly  classes  among 
the  means  of  religious  culture  of  which  the 
new  kingdom  cannot  make  use  without  de- 
feating its  own  ends.  The  Sabbath  as  defined 
by  the  Pharisees  he  not  only  disparages,  but 
indignantly  condemns;  but  the  Sabbath  itself 
he  takes  vinder  his  own  lordship,  as  an  insti- 
tution that  God  appointed  to  serve  the  human- 
ity of  wl-.ich  he  is  Head  and  King. 

There  is  a  verv  fruitful  thouglit  in  the  there- 


fore of  verse  28.  The  word  teaches  that  every- 
thing that  was  "  made  for  man "  is  thereby 
brought  under  the  lordshiii  of  Christ.  M(jney 
was  made  for  man  ;  so  were  marriage  and  the 
life  of  the  family  ;  so  were  books,  amusements, 
means  of  pleasure  and  profit  of  every  kind. 
If  they  were  made  for  man,  the  Son  of  man  is 
Lord  of  them,  and  they  must  be  used  only  as 
he  wills,  under  his  guidance,  according  to  the 
spirit  of  his  kingdom. 


1-6.  ON  ANOTHER  SABBATH.  JESUS 
HEALS  A  ]MAN  WITH  A  WITHERED 
HAND.  Pamlleh,  Matt.  12  :  9-14 ;  Luke  (i  :  G- 
11. — All  three  evangelists  connect  tliis  work  on 
the  Sabbath  witli  the  preceding,  but  only  Luke 
notes  the  fact  that  it  occurred  on  another  Sab- 
bath. Matthew,  from  whom  we  should  infer 
that  the  Sabbath  was  the  same,  has  followed 
his  favorite  method  of  grouping  events  of  kin- 
dred significance,  and  has  not  made  his  connec- 
tive word  to  correspond.  Possibly  in  this  case 
they  have  all  acted  on  Matthew's  jirincijile  and 
placed  the  two  events  together  from  internal 
reasons,  rather  than  because  they  occurred  at 
nearly  the  same  time.  The  narratives  of  Mark 
and  Luke  are  closely  parallel,  but  Matthew  puts 
the  incjuiry  about  healing  on  the  S;il)l)ath  into 
the  mouths  of  the  adversaries,  and  introdiu'cs 
the  comparison  of  the  sheep  falling  into  the  pit, 
which  Luke  places  (though  with  variation  of 
form)  at  a  later  time  (i.uke  u:d). 

1.  He  entered  again  into  the  syna- 
gogue.  As  his  custom  was  ( Luke  <:  is)  at  the 
beginning  of  his  ministry,  and  i)robably  through 
the  whole  of  if.  He  could  not  fail  to  j)ut  honor 
upon  the  religious  use  of  the  Sabbath.  The 
services  of  the  synagogue  had  no  direc-t  author- 
ity in  the  ancient  Scriptures,  synagogues  hav- 
ing si)rung  uj)  about  the  time  of  the  Exile,  and 
the  system  having  been  developed  mainly  after 
the  clo.se  of  the  Old-Testament  canon.  But  the 
existence  of  the  synagogues  wa-s  in  true  accord- 
ance with  the  spiritual  jnirpose  of  tiie  Sabl)ath  ; 
and,  though  the  practice  of  public  woi-ship  was 
by  no  means  perfect  or  satisfactory,  still  our 
Lord  must  have  looked  ajiprovingly  on  tlie  ser- 
vice of  the  .synagogue,  and  have  wished  to  favor 
it  by  his  example.  He  did  not  hold  himself 
aloof  because  of  the  faults  of  the  institution, 
great  as  they  were,  yet  what  must  he  have  felt 
sometimes  as  he  listened  to  the  instructions  that 


44 


MAEK. 


[Ch.  III. 


2  And  they  -n-atchedo  him,  whether  he  would  heal 
him  on  the  sabbath-day ;  that  they  might  accuse  him. 

3  And  he  saith  unto  the  man  which  had  the  withered 
hand,  Stand  forth. 

4  And  he  saith  unto  them.  Is  it  lawful  to  do  good  on 
the  sabbath-days,  or  to  do  evil  ?  to  save  life,'  or  to  kill  ? 
But  they  held  their  peace. 

5  And  when  he  had  looked  round  about  on  them 
with  anger,  being  grieved  for  the  hardness  of  their 


2  And  they  watched  him,  whether  he  would  heal  him 
on   the  sabbath  day  ;   that  they  might  accuse  him. 

3  And  he  saith  unto  the  man  that  had  his  hand  with- 

4  ered,  ^Stand  forth.  And  he  saith  unto  them,  Is  it 
lawful  on  the  sabbath  day  to  do  good,  or  to  do  harm  ? 
to  save  a  life,  or  to  kill?    But  they  held  their  peace. 

5  And  when  he  had  looked  round  about  on  them  with 
anger,  being  grieved  at  the  hardening  of  their  heart. 


I  Luke  U  :  1 b  Hos.  6  :  6.- 


-1  Gr.  Arise  into  the  midst. 


were  given  in  the  synagogues !  The  place  of 
this  synagogue  is  unknown  ;  it  was  somewhere 
in  GaHlee— perhaps  in  Capernaum.  Mark  says 
nothing  about  tlie  company ;  Luke  mentions 
tlie  scribes  and  the  Pharisees,  who  may  have 
been  the  ones  who  had  come  from  Jerusalem 
(Luke  5 :  n) ;  but  our  knowledge  of  the  time  and 
order  is  so  limited  that  we  cannot  affirm  it  very 
positively. — A  man  which  had  a  Avithered 
hand.  Luke,  "  His  right  hand."  No  hint  is 
given  of  his  previous  spiritual  state. 

2.  It  is  plain  that,  as  at  chap.  2  :  1-12,  they 
expected  Jesus  to  heal  the  man.  The  sight  of 
suffering  had  often  been  sufficient  to  call  his 
power  into  exercise,  and  they  knew  that  it 
would  be  sufficient  now.  But  they  were  no 
longer  watching  merely  to  see  what  he  would 
do :  they  were  watching  with  intent  to  accuse 
him.  "  The  casuistry  of  the  rabbis  allowed 
the  practice  of  the  healing  art  on  the  Sabbath 
in  cases  of  life  and  death,  but  the  withered 
hand — a  permanent  infirmity — obviously  did 
not  come  under  that  category"  {Plumptre).  If 
he  healed  the  man,  an  accusation  before  the 
local  court — the  "judgment"  of  Matt.  5  :  21 — 
would  be  the  consequence. 

3,  4.  Luke  says  that  he  knew  their  thoughts ; 
therefore  he  fully  understood  the  test.  Never 
did  he  shrink  from  such  a  test,  and  now  he 
boldly  took  the  case  into  his  own  hands,  call- 
ing the  man  out  into  the  midst  of  the  assem- 
bly. But  he  really  transferred  the  test  from 
himself  to  his  advei-saries.  Is  it  lawful  to  do 
good  on  the  Sabbath-days,  or  to  do  evil? 
to  save  life,  or  to  kill?  Not  "on  the  Sab- 
bath-days," but  "on  the  Sabbath;"  the  Greek 
word  is  the  same  as  in  verse  2  and  in  chap.  2  :  23. 
The  two  contrasted  verbs  do  not  mean  "to  do 
right"  and  "to  do  wrong,"  but  rather  "to 
benefit"  and  "to  injure."  In  the  other  pair 
of  verbs,  "  to  save  life  or  to  kill,"  he  apparently 
recognizes  the  principle  that  neglect  is  injury, 
and  that  he  who  does  not  save  life  when  he 
has  the  power  destroys  it.  Yet  perhaps  the 
words  were  chosen  with  intentional  sharpness, 
the  dreadful  word  "kill"  being  intended  to 
reveal  to  them  the  true  nature  of  their  own 
feeling  and  the  tendency  of  their  practice ;  as 


if  he  had  said,  "  Would  you  allow  me  to  save  a 
life  on  the  Sabbath  ?  or  would  you  insist  that 
the  man  must  die  rather  than  be  saved  at  the 
expense  of  the  Sabbath-day  ?  If  you  say  that 
the  man  must  be  left  to  die,  you  say  that  it  is 
lawful,  allowable,  to  kill  on  the  Sal)l)ath ;  you 
make  the  Sabbath  justify  you  in  nnirder.  If  I 
may  heal  to-day,  it  is  lawful  to  save  life  on  the 
Sabbath  ;  if  I  may  not  heal,  it  is  lawful  to  de- 
stroy it  on  the  Sabbath.  Which  is  the  right 
way?  What  shall  I  do?"  Thus  he  put  his 
enemies  to  the  test  which  they  meant  for  him. 
They  could  not  forbid  him  to  heal  except  on 
grounds  that  would  make  the  sanctity  of  the 
Sabbath  a  cover  for  cruelty  and  murder,  and 
the  question  was  publicly  thrust  home  upon 
them. — But  they  would  not  meet  the  test  like 
men.  They  held  their  peace.  Peculiar  to 
Mark,  though  implied  in  Luke.  They  were 
silent  from  cowardice  or  from  the  meanness 
that  would  only  stand  aloof  and  leave  him  to 
himself  As  for  the  appeal  of  humanity,  it 
never  touched  them. 

5.  Luke,  "  Having  looked  round  aliout  upon 
them  all."  Mark  omits  "all,"  but  adds,  Avith 
anger,  being  grieved  for  the  hardness 
of  their  hearts.  The  deliberate,  searching 
look,  turning  from  countenance  to  countenance 
and  seeking  in  vain  for  some  answering  look 
of  manliness  and  love,  impressed  itself  on  the 
memory  of  the  beholders,  and  some  of  them, 
at  least,  remembered  the  anger  that  was  in  it, 
and  the  grief.  The  men  were  evading  a  simple 
question  of  right  and  wrong,  and  doing  it  be- 
cause they  would  not  place  themselves  where 
they  would  be  defeated  in  a  wicked  purpose, 
and  he  was  grieved  and  angry.  Shall  we  call 
this  human  grief  and  anger  and  class  it  with 
his  weariness  (John  4: 6)  and  wonder  (Matt.  8:io; 
Mark  6 : 6)  and  the  limitations  of  his  knowledge 
(Mark  13 :  32)  ?  Ycs ;  Undoubtedly  this  was  hu- 
man grief  and  anger,  but  it  was  more.  It  was 
identical  with  that  anger  and  grief  of  God 
against  similar  hard-heartedness  of  which  the 
prophets  are  full,  and  which  is  not  unmen- 
tioned  in  the  Gospels — a  sad  anger  or  a  wrath- 
ful grief  which  is  infinitely  real.  The  ancient 
figment  of  the  impassibility  of  God  ought  to 


Ch.  III.] 


MARK. 


45 


hearts,  he  saith  unto  the  man,  Stretch  forth  thine 
hand.  And  he  stretched  il  out :  and  his  hand  was  re- 
stored whole  as  tlie  other. 

Ci  And  the  I'harisees  went  forth,  and  straightway 
took  counsel  with  the"  Herodiaus  against  him,  how 
they  might  destroy  him. 

7  But  .lesus  withdrew  himself  with  his  disciples  to 
the  sea:  and  a  great'  multitude  from  tialilee  followed 
him,  and  from  Judea, 


he  saith  unto  the  man.  Stretch  forth  thy  hand.  And 

he  stretched  it  forth  :  and  his  hand  was   restored. 

6  And  the  I'harisees  went  out,  and  straightway  with 
the  Herodians  took  counsel  against  him,  liow  they 
might  destroy  him. 

7  And  Jesus  with  his  disciples  withdrew  to  the  sea  : 
and  a  great  multitude  from  Galilee  followed :  and 


1  Matt.  22:  16.... 5  Luke  6  :  17. 


liave  no  place  in  Christian  thinking.  If  God 
has  not  the  quickest  and  most  intense  of  feel- 
ings, Christ  did  not  reveal  him.  (Comi)are, 
among  many  Scriptures,  Isa.  1  1-20 ;  Hos. 
11  :  8,  9 ;  Jer.  7  :  1-28 ;  Ezek.  18  30-32 ;  Eph. 
4  :  30.) — For  the  hard-hearted  ones  he  had  not 
now  a  word,  but  only  that  never-to-be-forgot- 
ten look.  The  word  was  for  the  needy  man. 
Stretch  forth  thine  hand.  And  is  this  thy 
way,  Lord — to  call  upon  man  for  what  he  can- 
not do,  and  then  to  "  put  strength  in  him " 
when  he  "takes  hold  of  thy  strength " ?  The 
act  was  impossible  to  the  man;  but  if  he  had 
not  had  faith  in  the  Healer  to  attempt  it,  we 
liave  no  reason  to  think  he  would  have  been 
liualed.  His  attempting  it  wtus  itself  a  work 
of  faith,  and  his  success  was  at  once  a  triumph 
of  faith  and  a  gift  of  God  (jamea  2 :  17,  is).  Every 
genuine  act  of  faith  is  just  such  a  ventur- 
ing upon  divine  power  and  grace. — And  he 
stretched  it  out,  and  his  hand  was  re- 
stored. Whole  as  the  other  is  to  be  omitted 
here,  having  come  in  from  the  parallel  passage 
in  Matthew. 

6.  According  to  Luke,  the  Pharisees  who 
were  thus  confuted  were  "filled  with  mad- 
ness." No  wonder;  for,  although  their  liope 
of  an  occasion  against  Jesus  had  been  realized, 
their  defeat  wa.s  of  the  most  thorough  and  ter- 
rilile  kind.  They  had  e.Khibitcd  themselves  in 
their  real  character,  and  had  drawn  out  the 
fact  tliat  his  grace  was  only  the  highest  hu- 
manity, after  all.  Nothing  is  said  of  any  accu- 
sation before  the  local  court  for  this  violation 
of  the  Sabbath,  but  there  followed  straight- 
way, that  very  day,  the  first  recorded  plotting 
against  the  life  of  Jesus. — The  Pharisees  .  .  . 
with  the  Herodians.  The  Herodians  ap- 
pear only  here  and  at  ^lark  12  :  13  and  Matt. 
22  :  10,  these  two  passages  referring  to  the  same 
occasion.  The  Herods  were  ])ractically  half 
Jews :  tliey  were  Iduma'ans,  of  kindred  though 
alien  birth  with  the  Jews,  and  they  professed 
the  Jewish  faith,  but  only  in  a  moderate  and 
compromising  way.  They  had  sought  the  es- 
tablishment of  Jewish  national  life,  and  had 
probably  intended  to  make  that  life  ultimately 
independent  of   Rome,   thor.gh   for    the  time 


nothing  could  be  done  except  under  the  Ro- 
man protection.  Thus  they  were  regarded  with 
interest  by  tliose  who  intensely  dreaded  the 
domination  of  Rome  as  a  pagan  power,  and 
also  by  those  who  were  more  compromising 
than  rigorous  in  maintaining  the  national  faitli. 
Tlie  Herodians  were  thus  a  middle  party,  with- 
out vitality  enough  to  last  long  or  to  e.\ert  any 
great  influence.  They  had  more  in  common 
with  the  Sadducees ;  but  we  find  them  on 
both  occasions  in  conference  with  the  Phar- 
isees against  Jesus.  Probably  the  combination 
was  a  union  for  special  purposes,  for  the  sake 
of  which  serious  disagreements  might  be  over- 
looked. Mark  alone  mentions  the  Herodians 
here.  He  and  Matthew  say  that  it  was  a  plot 
to  destroy  Jesus — an  actual  counsel  of  murder. 

7-12.  JESUS  WITHDRAWS  TO  THE  SEA- 
SHORE ;  JklANY  RESORT  TO  HIM.  Parallel, 
Matt.  12  :  15,  16. — In  the  following  verses  (v-ii) 
Matthew  illustrates  tlie  work  of  the  period  from 
prophecy,  and  in  his  chap.  4  :  24,  25  he  tells  of 
the  great  concourse  from  many  quarters  that 
attended  upon  the  ministry  in  Galilee,  and  of 
tlie  great  activity  in  healing.  Luke's  parallel  is 
at  6  :  17-19. 

7,  8.  Jesus  withdrew  himself  with  his 
disciples  to  the  sea.  Matthew,  simply, 
"Knowing  it"  (the  plotting),  "he  withdrew 
thence."  This  was  not  a  retreating  for  an  hour 
or  a  day  from  the  malice  of  his  enemies ;  by 
the  shore  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee  he  established 
for  a  time  the  seat  of  his  activity.  He  did  not 
wish  to  arouse  hostility,  and  the  city  was  be- 
coming too  full  of  excitement  to  be  the  best 
place  for  his  work.  We  have  no  means,  of 
course,  of  ascertaining  the  locality  that  he 
chose  or  the  length  of  time  that  he  spent  by 
the  sea. — In  verse  7  we  li.ive  an  account  of  the 
first  multitude,  so  to  speak,  by  which  he  was 
surrounded,  and  in  verse  8  we  read  of  the  fresh 
multitude  from  other  regions  that  was  attracted 
by  the  fame  of  what  he  was  doing.  First,  a 
great  multitude  from  Galilee  .  .  .  and 
from  Judsea,  where  he  had  been  seen  and 
heard — the  multitude  that  he  had  personally 
attracted — followed  him  to  his  new  scene  of 
working.   Then  it  is  added  that  a  great  multitude 


46 


MARK. 


[Ch.  hi. 


8  And  from  Jerusalem,  and  from  Idumea,  and  fnmi 
beyond  Jordan  ;  and  they  about  Tyre  and  8idon,  a 
great  uuiltitude,  when  they  had  heard  what  great 
things  he  did,  came  unto  him. 

9  And  he  spake  to  his  disciples,  that  a  small  ship 
should  wait  on  him  because  of  the  multitude,  lest  they 
should  throng  him. 

10  For  he  had  healed  many ;"  insomuch  that  they 
pressed  upon  him  for  to  touch  him,  as  many  as  had 
plagues. 

11  And'  unclean  spirits,  when  they  saw  him,  fell 
down  before  him,  and  cried,  saying.  Thou  art  the  Sou 
of  God. 

12  And  he  straitly  charged  them  that  they  should 
not  make  him  known." 


8  from  Judtea,  and  from  Jerusalem,  and  from  Idumaea, 
and  beyond  Jordan,  and  about  Tyre  and  Sidon,  a 
great  multitude,  hearing  'what  great  things  he  did, 

9  came  unto  him.  And  he  spake  to  his  disciples,  that 
a  little  boat  should  wait  on  him  because  of  the  crowd, 

10  lest  they  should  throng  him:  for  he  had  healed 
many;  insomuch  that  as  many  as  had  -plagues 
^pressed   upon   him   that  they   might    touch    him. 

11  And  the  unclean  spirits,  whensoever  they  beheld 
him,  fell  down  before  him,  and  cried,  saying.  Thou 

12  art  the  .Son  of  God.  And  he  charged  them  much 
that  they  should  not  make  him  known. 


a  Matt.  12  :  15;  14  :  H h  ch.  l-.U;  Matt.  14  :  33  ;  Luke  4  :  41 ;  James  2: 19 c  ch.  1  :  25,  34. 1  Or,  all  the  things  that  he  did 

2  Gr.  scourges 3  Gr.  fell. 


from  south,  east,  and  north,  hearing  what 
great  things  he  did,  came  to  him.     The 

verb  is  in  tlie  imperfect  tense  ("  was  doing"), 
and  it  was  the  actual  report  spread  abroad  that 
brouglit  these  people.  Luke  says  that  they  came 
to  hear  as  well  as  to  be  healed.  They  came  from 
Idumaea,  or  the  land  of  Edom,  on  the  south, 
mentioned  here  alone  in  the  New  Testament. 
It  was  the  native  land  of  the  Herods,  and  Are- 
tas,  the  ruler  of  the  land  at  that  time,  had  given 
his  daughter  in  marriage  to  Herod  Antipas,  by 
whom  she  had  lately  been  divorced  to  make 
room  for  Herodias.  Probably  these  political 
relations  had  brought  about  an  increase  of  in- 
tercourse between  Idumrea  and  the  land  of  the 
Jews.  They  came  from  Percea,  or  the  country 
beyond  the  Jordan,  on  the  east,  a  region  after- 
ward visited  by  our  Lord  ;  they  came  from  the 
country  about  Tyre  and  Sidon  on  the  north,  a 
region  in  which  Jesus  afterward  met  liis  own 
fame  in  the  eager  demand  of  the  Syro-Phce- 
nician  woman  for  the  healing  of  her  daughter 
(chap.  7 :  24-30).  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  tid- 
ings carried  home  by  these  visitors  to  his  com- 
pany awakened  the  faith  that  he  found  in  her, 
or  she  may  even  herself  have  been  there.  Of 
such  great  assemblages  Thomson  says  that  they 
are  eminently  characteristic  of  the  people  of 
Palestine :  "  I  have  seen  hundreds  of  these 
gatherings  in  the  open  air;  and,  should  a 
prophet  now  arise  with  a  tithe  of  the  celeb- 
rity of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  there  would  quickly 
be  immense  assemblies  about  him,  from  Gal- 
ilee, and  from  Decapolis,  and  from  Judsea,  and 
from  beyond  Jordan.  Tliere  is  an  irresistible 
bias  in  Orientals  of  all  religions  to  run  after  the 
mere  shadow  of  a  prophet  or  a  miracle-worker  " 
{The  Land  and  the  Book,  2.  84). 

9.  Here  first  does  a  boat  appear  as  a  help  and 
convenience  in  our  Lord's  ministry.  Here  it  is 
a  small  ship.  Properly,  "  a  boat."  Afterward, 
as  in  chap.  4  : 1  and  Matt.  8  :  23,  the  Greek  is  "  the 
boat,"  though  not  always  so.     The  mention  of 


the  boat  here  is  peculiar  to  Mark,  and  it  seems 
as  if  it  were  used  only  to  escape  the  pressure  of 
the  throng,  not,  as  in  Matt.  13  :  2,  as  a  pulpit. 

10-12.  But  the  motive  for  which  they  pressed 
upon  him — surely  it  must  have  touched  his 
heart  so  deeply  that  he  would  be  out  of  reach 
as  little  as  possible.  The  ministrj'  by  the  sea- 
shore was  a  ministry  of  healing,  more  fully  de- 
tailed as  such  in  Luke,  but  plainly  such  in  Mark. 
The  still  more  full  account  of  manifold  healing 
in  Matthew  (4 :  24, 25)  cannot  be  so  definitely  as- 
signed to  this  occasion.  The  reason  of  the 
thronging  upon  him  was  that  he  had  already 
healed  many,  and  therefore  "  as  many  as  had 
plagues  pressed" — literally,  fell — upon  him, 
for  to  touch  him.  "  For  power  went  out  from 
him,"  says  Luke,  "and  healed  them  all."  He 
bore  with  them  with  an  admirable  patience  and 
kindness,  but  sometimes  he  must  escape.  Prob- 
ably we  have  no  reason  to  ima^ne  that  the 
going  forth  of  power  wearied  him,  as  if  it  were 
a  kind  of  effluence  that  took  something  from 
him  at  every  act ;  but  he  would  not  liave  been 
truly  human  if  he  had  not  been  wearied  by  so 
constant  and  severe  a  demand  upon  his  sym- 
pathies. He  sought  rest  on  the  quiet  waters  of 
the  lake,  and  perhaps  in  resorting  to  the  moun- 
tains beyond  for  prayer.  Indeed,  in  view  of 
verse  13  (see  note  there),  it  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  the  boat  did  not  sometimes  convey  him 
away  from  the  wearying  crowd  at  nightfall  to 
spend  the  night  in  communion  with  his  Father. 
— It  seems  to  have  been  the  rule  in  the  ministry 
by  the  shore  that  the  evil  spirits  fell  down  be- 
fore him  and  acknowledged  him  as  the  Son  of 
God :  the  verbs  in  verse  11,  all  in  the  imperfect 
tense,  indicate  as  much.  They  thus  fell  down, 
not  when  he  bade  them  confess,  but  when  they 
saAV  him.  But,  as  before  (chap.  1 125-^4),  he  did 
not  accept  their  testimony.  The  natural  con- 
struction of  verse  12  makes  the  prohibition  to 
be  addressed  to  the  demons,  though  in  Matthew 
(12 :  16)  it  is  addressed  to  all  whom  he  healed. 


Ch.  III.] 


MARK. 


47 


13  And"  he  gocth  up  into  a  mountain,  and  calleth 
unlo  him  whom  he''  would :  and  they  came  unto  him. 

14  And  he  ordained  twelve,  that  they  should  be  with 
him,  and  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to  preach. 


13  And  he  poeth  up  into  the  mountain,  and  calleth 
unto  him  whom  he  himself  would:  and  they  went 

14  unto   him.     And   he   appointed   twelve,*  that   they 
might  be  with  him,  and  that  he  might  send  them 


o  Matt.  10:1 b  John  15  :  16.- 


-1  Some  ancieat  authorities  add  tehom  aUo  A«  named  apoitlet.    See  Luke  vi.  13. 


Both  may  be  according  to  fact,  Mark  having 
selected  for  mention  only  one  class  of  those  to 
whom  the  command  of  silence  was  given.  He 
rejected  the  testimony  of  demons;  the  appeal 
that  he  made  to  evidence  is  illustrated  in  Jolin 
5  :  32-37,  and  his  witnesses  are  the  Baptist  and 
his  own  holy  and  gracious  works,  and  the 
Heavenly  Father  himself.  How  incongruous 
in  the  midst  of  this  would  be  an  appeal  to  the 
confession  of  demons !  and  how  unsuitable 
that  such  reports  should  go  out  among  the 
people !  Possibly  the  charge  of  collusion  with 
Beelzebul)  (verse  22)  may  have  been  suggested  by 
this  testimony  of  demons. 

13-19.  JESUS  WITHDRAWS  TO  THE 
MOUNTAIN  AND  SELECTS  THE  TWELVE 
APOSTLES.  Parallel,  Luke  6  :  12-16.— In  Matt. 
10  :  2-1  the  names  of  the  apostles  are  given,  but 
not  in  connection  with  their  appointment.  A 
fourth  list  is  given  in  Acts  1 :  13,  made  after  the 
twelve  had  become  the  eleven.  From  Luke  it 
is  apparent — as  it  is  not  from  Matthew  or  Mark 
— that  tlie  appointment  of  the  apostles  was  im- 
mediately followed  by  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
Matthew  omits  the  appointment  of  the  apostles, 
and  Mark  omits  the  sermon. 

13.  He  goeth  up  into  a  mountain.  Prop- 
erlj',  "  the  mountain."  It  is  the  same  in  Matt. 
5  :  1.  Tradition  has  selected  for  the  honor  of 
this  occasion  a  mountain  called  Hattin,  to  the 
west  of  the  lake  and  at  a  little  distance  from  it — 
a  hill  with  two  peaks  or  eminences,  and  hence 
known  as  the  "  Horns  of  Hattin."  It  is  the 
most  prominent  height  on  that  side  of  the 
lake,  and  commands  a  wide  prospect ;  it  is  easy 
of  access,  yet  would  offer  favorable  opportu- 
nities of  retirement.  Tradition  may  be  wrong, 
but  in  this  case  it  seems  likely  that  it  is  right. 
According  to  Luke,  Jesus  went  to  the  moun- 
tain at  evening,  apart  from  his  disciples,  though 
they  were  near,  and  spent  the  night  in  prayer 
to  God :  the  more  likely,  then,  that  nights  in 
his  seashore  ministry  may  have  been  so  spent. 
A  great  night  was  this  in  the  history  of  his 
kingdom,  a  great  night  in  his  own  history — an 
example  of  fervent  prayer  at  a  crisis  of  life. 
We  are  not  forbidden  to  imagine  him  studying 
the  characters  of  the  men  whom  he  had  called 
about  him  and  going  through  the  process  of 
selection.  Not  at  random  were  the  apostles 
chosen,  and  not,  we  may  be  sure,  without  care- 


ful thought  on  the  part  of  the  Master. — In  the 
morning  he  calleth  unto  him  whom  he 
would:  and  they  came  unto  him.  Pecu- 
liar to  Mark;  in  Luke,  simply,  '  He  called  his 
disciples."  The  scene  may  be  thus  imagined : 
Jesus  alone  upon  a  higher  place  of  the  moun- 
tain, and  his  disciples,  a  considerable  company, 
near  him,  below ;  Jesus  has  made  his  selection 
and  calls  the  chosen  ones  up  to  him  from  the 
company  below,  and  they  come  up  and  take 
their  places  at  his  side.  In  all  the  lists  the 
twelve  are  arranged  in  groups  of  four,  the  per- 
sons in  each  group  being  always  the  same, 
though  the  order  varies  within  the  group. 
Perhaps  the  simplest  explanation  of  this  is  that 
he  called  the  twelve  up  in  groups  of  four.  Thus, 
having  made  a  genuine  selection  in  his  own 
mind,  he  made  one  openly,  and  did  not  call 
the  mass  of  the  disciples  up  till  he  had  the 
twelve  about  him.  By  this  time  the  multi- 
tude, who  had  spent  the  night  at  Capernaum 
or  elsewhere  in  the  vicinity,  had  followed  him 
and  found  him,  and  were  present  when  he  pro- 
ceeded with  that  charge  to  his  apostles  which 
we  know  as  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

14,  15.  And  he  ordained  twelve.  Lit- 
erally, he  "  made,"  or  constituted.  The  number 
twelve  would  remind  them  of  the  number  of 
the  tribes  of  Israel,  and  was  undoubtedly  in- 
tended to  do  so.  See  the  promise  in  Matt.  19  : 
28  that  the  apostles  should  sit  on  twelve  thrones 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel — a  promise 
that  cannot  possibly  be  taken  literally,  because 
of  the  fall  of  Judas  if  for  no  other  reason,  but 
one  that  points  to  the  true  symbolism  of  the 
number  in  the -apostolic  body.  The  church  of 
Christ*is  the  true  Israel,  and  this  body  of  twelve 
leaders,  coiTesponding  to  the  twelve  patriarchs, 
founders  of  the  tribes,  was  intended  as  an  in- 
dication of  that  fact.  As  the  old  Israel  had  its 
twelve  founders,  so  should  the  new  one  have. 
The  twelve  are  not  here  called  apostles,  as  they 
are  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Luke,  though  Mark 
employs  the  word  in  chap.  6  :  30.  Luke's  lan- 
guage implies  that  he  then  gave  the  name  to  the 
twelve.  It  means  "  one  who  is  sent,"  and  hence, 
more  specifioally,  "  an  ambassador."  The  name 
can  hardly  have  suggested  to  those  who  received 
it  any  definite  ambitions  respecting  a  worldly 
kingdom,  but  it  would  not  have  been  unfavorable 
to  such  ambitions  if  thev  were  alreadv  cherished. 


48 


MARK. 


[Ch.  III. 


15  And  to  have  power  to  heal  sicknesses,  and  to  cast 
out  devils: 

16  And  Simon"  he  surnamed  Peter; 

17  And  James  the  .mn  of  Ze))edee,  and  John  the  bro- 
ther of  James;  and  he  surnamed  them  Hoanerges, 
which  is,  Tlie  sons  of  thunder:' 

18  And  Andrew,  and  Philip,  and  Bartholomew,  and 
Matthew,  and  Thomas,  and  James  the  so7i  of  Alpheus, 
and  Thaddeus,  and  Simon  the  Canaanite, 

19  And  J  udas  Iscariot,  which  also  betrayed  him :  and 
they  went  into  a  house. 


15  forth    to   preach,  and   to   have  authority  to   cast 
16 out    demons:     'and    Simon    he    surnamed    Peter; 

17  and  James  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  John  the  bro- 
ther of  James ;  and  them  he  surnamed  Hoanerges, 

18  which  is,  Sons  of  thunder:  and  Andrew,  and  I'hilip, 
and  liartholuniew,  and  Mattiiew,  and  Thomas,  and 
James  the  sati  of  Alph;cus,  and  Thaddieus,  and  Simon 

19  the'-C'auana'au,and  Judas  Iscariot,  who  also  betrayed 
him. 


a  John  1  :  42. . .  .6  Isa.  58  :  I  ;  Jer.  23  :  2».- 


-1  Some  ancient  authorities  insert  and  he  appointed  twelve. . 
vi.  15;  Acts  i.  13. 


.2  Or,  Zealot.     See  Lulie 


Mark  alone  gives  here  any  account  of  tlie  apostol- 
ic office,  and  he  describes  it  merely  as  it  was  dur- 
ing the  ministry  of  Jesus.— That  they  should 
be  with  him,  and  that  he  might  send 
them  forth  to  preach,  and  to  have  power 
...  to  cast  out  devils.  Properly,  "demons." 
Corapanionsliip  with  him  was  for  their  educa- 
tion witli  reference  to  work  for  the  future.  Of 
his  sending  them  out  to  preach  we  have  only  one 

example   (Matt.  lO:  l;  Marie  6:30;  Luke  9:  1,2).      Mark's 

brief  account  of  the  apostolic  office  probably 
contains  the  substance  of  what  Jesus  then  told 
them :  lie  did  not  tell  them  at  once  either  what 
suffering  or  what  honor  should  be  a.ssociated 
with  the  name  of  an  apostle.  They  "  could 
not  bear  it  now,"  and  the  future  must  make 
its  own  revelations.  As  soon  as  their  associa- 
tion with  Jesus  had  ended  and  he  had  been 
glorified,  the  apostles  themselves  began  to  liave 
a  new  idea  of  their  own  function  (Acta  1 :  21, 22). 
Then  they  felt  that  they  nulst  tell  the  story  of 
their  Master's  work  from  the  baptism  of  John 
and  bear  witness  to  his  resurrection.  This  was 
Peter's  interpretation  and  unfolding  of  the 
Lord's  own  instruction  in  Acts  1:8:  "Ye  shall 
be  witnesses  unto  me."  Accordingly,  it  was 
held  to  be  necessary  that  an  apostle  should 
have  seen  the  Lord,  and  should  be  an  eye-wit- 
ness to  his  resurrection.  (See  Acts  1  :  22 ;  22  : 
14,  15;  1  Cor.  9  :  1.)  This  development  of  the 
office  was  predicted  by  the  Lord  in  John  15  : 
26,  27,  and  was  the  fitting  development  for  a 
relation  that  first  consisted  in  personal  compan- 
ionship with  him.  As  their  relation  to  liim  was 
peculiar,  so  was  their  office.  It  was  an  office 
that  belonged  to  that  time,  and  to  no  other. 
That  they  should  have  successors  was  impos- 
sible, from  the  nature  of  the  office. 

16-19.  According  to  Tischendorf,  the  words 
and  he  ordained  twelve  should  be  repeated 
at  the  beginning  of  verse  16.  The  list  follows, 
differing  a  little  from  the  parallel  lists,  but  the 
variations  are  not  such  as  to  make  any  serious 
difficulties.  Indeed,  they  are  probably  of  more 
help  than  hindrance. 

Simon,  James,  John,  and  Andrew  form 


the  first  group  of  four :  so  in  all  the  lists.  (1)  Si- 
mon stands  first  in  all ;  Matthew  says,  "  First  Si- 
mon." He  was  the  first  chosen;  first  in  the 
mind  of  Jesus,  he  was  practically  first  in  many 
respects  among  his  fellow-apostles,  often  stand- 
ing as  their  representative,  speaking  for  the 
whole  circle — sometimes  for  evil,  but  often  for 
good.  After  the  Master's  departure  he  was  tlie 
leader  of  the  apostolic  band,  and  the  one  to 
whom  it  was  given  to  open  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  first  to  Jews  (Acts  2),  and  afterward  to 
Gentiles  (Acts  10).  From  this  day  of  selection 
until  Paul  was  raised  up  to  do  a  wider  work 
than  was  possible  to  him  he  was  decidedly  the 
first  of  the  apostles.  Mark  speaks  as  if  the 
name  Peter  ("rock")  were  now  for  the  first 
time  given  to  him :  so  also  Luke ;  but  it  ap- 
l^ears  in  John  1  :  42  that  it  was  given  at  the 
very  first  interview,  at  the  scene  of  John's 
baptism.  Yet  perhaps  the  name  was  merely 
spoken  at  first  and  did  not  attach  itself  to  the 
man,  and  was  renewed  so  emphatically  as  to 
become  a  part  of  himself  at  the  time  of  the 
apostolic  appointment.  Of  his  previous  life  wo 
know  scarcely  more  than  that  he  was  the  son 
of  Jonah,  of  whom  nothing  more  is  known ; 
that  he  lived  first  at  Bethsaida  (john  1 :  a),  and 
afterward  at  Capernaum  (Marit  1 :  29) ;  and  that  he 
was  a  disciple  of  John  the  Baptist.  He  was  a 
fi.sherman,  and  already  married  (waric  i:3o).  (2) 
James,  a  son — apparently  the  older  son — of  Zeb- 
edee, a  fisherman  of  Bethsaida  or  Capernaum, 
and  his  wife  Salome.  The  name  of  the  mother 
is  ascertained  by  comparing  Mark  15  :  40  with 
Matt.  27  :  56.  In  John  19  :  25  it  is  said  that 
"  there  stood  by  the  cross  of  Jesus  his  mother, 
and  his  mother's  sister,  Mary  the  wife  of  Cle- 
ophas  "  (Clopas),  "  and  Mary  Magdalene."  The 
construction  of  this  sentence  does  not  positively 
determine  whether  three  women  or  four  are 
meant;  whether  "  his  mother's  sister"  is  iden- 
tical with  "  Mary  the  wife  of  Clopas"  or  is  an- 
other person,  whose  name  is  not  given.  If  the 
latter  is  the  case,  then  doubtless  "  his  mother's 
sister"  is  Salome,  the  wife  of  Zebedee,  who  cer- 
tainly was  present.  The  preponderance  of  mod- 


Ch.  III.] 


MARK. 


49 


cm  critical  opinion  is  strongly  in  favor  of  this 
view  :  so  Wiesoler,  Liickc,  Langc,  ICwald,  Meyer. 
If  tl)is  view  is  correct,  James  anil  John  were 
first-cousins  to  Jesus.    It  is  not  ejisy  to  be  sure 
that  it  is  correct,  but  it  may  be  said  to  be  at 
least  probable.     The  name  "  James  "  is  the  He- 
brew "Jacob."   The  form  of  e.xpression  in  John 
1  :  41  makes  if  most  probable  that  after  the  visit 
of  John  and  Andrew  to  Jesus  eacli  set  out  in 
search  of  his  own  brother,  and  each  found  his 
brother   and  brougiit  him   to  Jesus,  Andrew 
coming  first  with  his,  and  .Tohn  following  with 
James.     If  so,  James  had  been  with  Jesus  from 
the  beginning.     He  and  his  brother,  too,  were 
fishermen,  and  were  partners  with  Simon  and 
Andrew  (i.uke  s :  lo).  James  is  not  mentioned  sep- 
arately in  the  Gospels,  but  appears  in  company 
with  John  in  an  aml)itious  request  (Mark  io:35-.i7) 
and  an  unspiritual  call  for  vengeance  (Luke 9: 54). 
He  was  the  tii-st  of  tlie  apostles  to  suffer  mar- 
tyrdom, and  the  only  one  whose  death  is  re- 
corded in  the  New  Testament  (Acts  1-2: 2).     (3) 
John  ("gift  of  God"),  the  younger  son,  appar- 
ently, of  Zebedee  and  Salome ;  one  of  the  first 
to  follow  Jesus,  having  been  directed  to  him  iiy 
the  Baptist.     He  is  called  in  his  own  Fourth 
Gospel  "the  discij)le  whom  Jesus  loved,"  and 
he  was  api)arently  the  one  of  the  twelve  in 
whom  Jesus  found  the  most  congenial  spirit. 
Yet  he  was  of  fiery  disposition,  and  not  the 
gentle,  affectionate  creatiu-e  that  ho  has  often 
been  pictured.    He  is  present,  though  not  prom- 
inent, in  the  early  ajiostolic  history.     His  field 
of  service  was  Ephcsus  and  the  surrounding 
region  of  Asia  Minor,  where  tradition  affirms 
that  lie  lived  to  a  great  age  and  composed  his 
Gospel  near  the  end  of  his  life.     To  him  the 
church  is  indebted  also  for  three  Ejiistles  and 
the  Apocalypse.   The  name  Boanerges  ("sons 
of  thunder")  is  an  Aramaic  compound  word: 
it  is  mentioned  by  Mark  alone,  and  only  here; 
and  as  an  Aramaic  word  it  is  worthy  to  rank, 
as    an    indication    of  style,    with    his    "  Eph- 
phatha"    and    "  Talitha-cumi."      No    liint    is 
given    of   the   occasion    for   the   name;    it   is 
usually  taken  (and  jirobably  aright)  as  a  mark 
of  the  fiery   disposition   of  the   two  brothers 
seen   in  Luke  9:49,  54;    Matt.   20:21.      The 
fiery  zeal  of  James  may  have  been  the  occa.sion 
of  liis  martyrdom.     It  is  not  necessary  to  sup- 
pose that  the  name  was  given  as  a  new  one  at 
this  time,  and  the  fact  that  the  name  did  not, 
like  "  refer,"  cling  to  those  who   received   it 
may  indicate  that  it  was  not  meant  as  an  abid- 


designation. 


course,  in  which  he  addressed  them  sometimes 
according  to  what  he  .saw  in  them  ;  and  this 
title  may  have  been  given  as  much  in  (juict  re- 
proof as  in  i)raise  of  their  tcm])er.  As  a  name 
that  might  be  an  honor  or  a  reproach  it  was  an 
admirable  title  for  men  who  were  possessed  of 
gifts  both  dangerous  and  valuable.  These  three, 
Peter,  James,  and  John,  were  the  ecdcsia  in 
ccdesia— the  chosen  three,  the  circle  nearest  to 

the  Master  (Mark  5  :  37  ;  Malt.  17  :  1  ;  26  :  37).      The  loVC 

of  Jesus  was  a  real  love,  and  had  its  choices,  a:s 
all  love  has,  and  his  purjio.se  also  led  him  to 
selections ;  so  there  were  twelve  out  of  many, 
three  out  of  twelve,  and  one  out  of  three— "the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved."  Note  that  the 
"one"  seems  to  have  been  selected  by  love 
rather  than  loved  because  of  selection.  (4)  An- 
drew son  of  Jonas,  brother  of  Simon  called 
Peter,  a  fisherman  of  Bethsaida,  a  disciiile  of 
the  Baptist,  John's  companion  in  the  first  visit 
to  Jesus,  the  bringer  of  Peter  to  liis  Master  (.lohn 
1 :. 15-44).  In  Matthew  and  Luke  his  name  stands 
second  on  the  list,  next  to  his  brother's  name; 
in  Mark  and  Acts  it  follows  the  first  group  of 
three.  It  is  not  plain  why  lie  was  not  always 
with  the  nearest  three,  among  whom  his  broth- 
er was.  Only  once  does  he  appear  with  them 
(Mark  13 : 3),  and  twicc  bcsidcs  does  he  appear  in 
tlie  Gospels  (joim  6:8;  12:22),  but  witli  uo  sjiccial 
marks  of  character.  He  is  not  mentioned  in 
the  Acts,  and  nothing  is  known  of  his  subse- 
quent labors,  even  tlie  voice  of  tradition  con- 
cerning him  being  confused  and  uncertain. 
Such  is  the  first  group  of  four. 

The  second  group  of  four  con.sists  of  Philip, 
Bartholomew,  Matthew,  and  Thomas: 
so  in  all  the  lists,  Philip  always  at  the  head. 
The  order  is  identical  in  Mark  and  Luke;  in 
Matthew,  it  is  Philip,  Bartholomew,  Thoma.s, 
Matthew;  in  the  Acts,  Philip.  Thomas,  Bar- 
tholomew, Matthew,  (o)  Philip.  He  was  of 
Bethsaida,  was  evidently  a  friend  of  the  first 
four  and  a  fellow-disciple  of  the  Baptist,  and 
was  the  first  to  whom  Jesus  sai'(T,  "Follow 
me"  (John  1: 43. 44).  The  fact  that  Ji«ins  "found" 
him  on  that  occasion  implies  tfiat  he  .sought 
him,  and  lience  that  he  knew  him  before. 
Philip  appears  three  times   in  the  Gospel  of 

John  (6:5-7;    12:21,  22;   14:8,  9),  but  UOt  elsCwhcre, 

and  early  Christian  liistory  has  nothing  cer- 
tain to  tell  of  him.  Clement  of  Alexandria 
a.ssumes  as  a  recognized  fiict  that  Philip  was 
the  disciple  who  .said,  "  Lord,  suffer  me  first  to 
go  and  bury  my  father"    (Matt. 8:21);   but 


Quite  likely  we  have  here  a  |  ternal  evidence  seems  unfavorable  to  his  as- 
trace  of  the  personal  relations  of  Jesus  with  sumption  (Smith's  Dictionnn/,  art.  "Philip"), 
his  friends,   a  reminiscence  of  private  inter- 1  His  name,  like  that  of  Andrew,   is  a  Greek 


60 


MARK. 


[Ch.  III. 


name;  and  Philip  and  Andrew  appear  together 
at  the  coming  of  the  "Greeks"  to  inquire  about 
Jesus  (johni2:2i).  Possibly  the  Greek  names 
may  liave  determined  tlie  Gentile  strangers  in 
the  choice  of  persons  to  inquire  of;  but  Pliilip 
and  Andrew  were  Palestinian  Jews,  and  doubt- 
less they  had  Hebrew  names  besides.  (6)  Bar- 
tholomew, a  name  that  tells  us  the  man's 
parentage  and  nothing  more,  like  Bar-Jesus 
(Acts  13: 6)  and  Bar-Jona  (Matt.  i6:n).  It  is  Bar- 
Tolmai,  "  son  of  Tolmai."  In  three  of  the  lists 
he  stands  ne.xt  to  Philip,  and  it  is  generally  be- 
lieved that  he  is  the  same  as  Nathanael  of  Cana 
in  Galilee,  whom  Pliilip  introduced  to  Jesus 
(John  1 :  45-51).  Of  the  man  before  his  call  we 
know  nothing,  except  from  Jesus'  testimony  to 
his  character:  "Behold  an  Israelite  indeed,  in 
whom  is  no  guile  " — a  sincere  and  earnest  man, 
loyal  to  God.  He  does  not  appear  again,  except 
among  the  seven  who  were  fishing  in  the  lake 
when  Jesus  showed  himself  to  them  after  the 
resurrection ;  that  he  too  was  a  fisherman  is 
scarcely  to  be  inferred  from  that.  Here,  as  at 
first,  he  appears  as  Nathanael,  which  was 
doubtless  his  personal  name ;  but  his  patrony- 
mic must  also  have  been  a  familiar  name  in 
his  case,  as  it  alone  appears  in  the  lists  of  apos- 
tles. These  six  are  known  to  have  been  dis- 
ciples of  John  the  Baptist,  and  to  have  been 
identified  with  Jesus  from  the  time  of  his  re- 
turn from  the  wilderness  after  the  temptation. 
They  are  probably  the  "disciples"  who  were 
at  the  wedding-feast  in  Cana,  accompanied  Je- 
sus to  Jerusalem  at  the  first  passover  of  his 
ministry,  baptized  for  him  while  he  remained 
in  Judaea,  and  returned  with  him  through  Sa- 
maria to  Galilee  (John  2:2;  3: 22;  4: 2).  If  therc  wcrc 
more  than  these  six,  we  have  no  means  of  know- 
ing who  they  were.  As  four  of  them  were  called 
a  second  time  in  Galilee,  so  doubtless  the  others 
were.  (7)  Matthew,  the  "Levi  the  son  of  Al- 
phffius"  of  chap.  2  :  14.  In  the  li.sts  of  apostles 
he  ajipears  only  by  what  was  probably  his  new 
name.  He  is  known  only  as  the  publican  (tax- 
collector)  of  Capernaum,  who  i)rf)mptly  follow- 
ed Jesus  and  made  him  a  great  feast  in  his  own 
house.  He  does  not  appear  again  in  the  Gos- 
pels or  the  Acts.  Uniform  Ciiristian  tradition 
lias  recognized  him  as  tlie  writer  of  the  Gospel 
that  bears  his  name.  In  his  own  list  of  the 
apostles,  and  there  alone,  he  is  written  as 
"Matthew  tlie  publican,"  the  name  of  reproach 
being  humbly  retained,  and  his  name  is  placed 
after  that  of  Tliomas.  As  suggested  above 
(chap.  2:  u),  it  is  not  unlikely  that  Matthew  was 
a  discii)le  of  the  Baptist  who  had  learned  from 
him  the  lesson  of  Luke  3  :  12,  13.     (8)  Thomas. 


Not  mentioned  bj'^  the  synoptists,  except  in  the 
lists,  but  mentioned  on  four  occasions  in  John's 
Gospel,  three  times  with  the  alternative  name 
of  Didymus,  or  "the  twin"  (johu  ii :  i6;u  :5;  20: 
24;  21 :2).  His  name  always  stands  next  to  that 
of  Matthew  in  the  lists — before  it  in  all  but 
Matthew's  own ;  and  that  fact,  together  with 
the  significant  name  "Didymus,"  has  led  many 
to  the  opinion  that  he  was  Matthew's  twin- 
brother.  Though  this  opinion  cannot  be  prov- 
ed correct,  it  may  be  accepted  as  highly  prob- 
able. Matthew,  mentioned  first  by  all  but 
himself,  was  probably  the  more  prominent  of 
the  two,  and  his  brother  was  the  one  to  receive 
the  name  of  "  twin."  Possibly  there  is  some 
confirmation  in  the  fact  that  the  alternative 
name  is  found  in  the  reminiscences  of  John, 
who,  writing  at  a  later  time,  might  naturally 
be  the  preserver  of  a  name  that  had  become 
current  within  the  circle  of  the  apostles.  The 
few  allusions  to  Thomas  give  us  a  clearer  view 
of  his  character  than  so  few  words  ordinarily 
give,  and  we  know  him  better  than  any  other 
apostle  except  the  first  three — a  faitliful  man, 
thoroughly  loyal  to  his  Master,  but  slow  to  be 
convinced  and  with  a  tendency  to  look  on  the 
dark  side.    Such  is  the  second  group  of  four. 

The  third  group  of  four  presents  more  mate- 
rial for  discussion,  but  the  discussion  would 
add  little  to  our  definite  knowledge.  The 
names  are,  in  Mark,  James  the  son  of  Al- 
phcvus,  Thaddicus,  Simon  the  Canaanite 
j  (Cananreus,  Kanunalos),  Judas  Iscariot.  In 
i  Matthew  the  same,  and  in  the  same  (inler,  ex- 
I  cept  that  Thaddicus  is  called  Lebbaius,  with 
I  Thaddaius  (in  some  manuscripts;  not  consid- 
I  ered  sufficient  by  Tischendorf)  as  a  surname; 
in  Luke,  James  the  son  of  Alphceus,  Simon 
Zelotes,  Judas  (the  brother  or  son)  of  James, 
Judas  Iscariot ;  in  the  Acts,  the  same,  with  the 
omission  of  Judas  Iscariot.  (9)  James  the  son 
of  Ali)ha'us,  the  head  of  this  group  in  all  the 
lists,  but  he  does  not  appear  again  in  tlie  Gos- 
pels. There  is  a  strong  presmnption  in  favor 
of  the  identity  of  this  Alphreus  with  the 
father  of  Matthew ;  and  if  this  presumption 
is  correct,  then  James  and  Matthew,  and  prob- 
ably Thomas,  were  brothers.  But  the  wife 
of  Alphoeus  (Clopas,  in  John  19 :  25,  being 
the  same  name  in  its  Aramaic  form)  is  called 
in  Mark  15  :  40  the  mother  of  James  the 
Less,  or  the  Little,  and  of  Joses — a  designa- 
tion that  we  would  scarcely  expect  if  she 
were  the  mother  of  Matthew  and  Thomas,  or 
even  of  one  of  them.  Hence  some  find  in  the 
James  and  Joses  here  mentioned  the  "brethren 
of  the  Lord  "  of  Mark  G  :  3 ;  but  strongly  against 


Ch.  III.] 


MARK. 


51 


tliis  is  John  7  :  5  and  Acts  1  :  14,  in  the  face  of  i 
which  it  is  impossible  to  find  any  of  his  bretli- 
rcn  among  the  ajiostles.  The  question  has, 
perliaps,  no  fully  satisfactory  solution.  To  the 
])resent  writer  it  seems  rather  more  probable 
that  there  was  only  one  Alplueus,  and  that  tiie 
two — and  probably  three — apostles  were  broth-  { 
ere.  To  the  association  of  James  witli  ]SIatthew  [ 
it  is  objected  that  tlieir  names  never  stand  to- 
gether ;  but  if  Matthew  and  Thomas  were  twins,  | 
they  would  naturally  form  a  pair  in  the  lists,  | 
and  the  next  name  after  theirs  is  uniformly  ' 
that  of  James.  (10)  Thadda-us,  called  Leblxeus  j 
in  ihitthew,  and  Judas  of  James  in  Luke  and 
Acts.  lie  appears  in  the  Gospels  only  as  "Ju- 
das not  Iscariot,"  asking  a  question,  in  John 
14  :  22,  and  nothing  more  is  known  of  him. 
His  name,  apparently,  was  Judas,  and  Lebl)«us 
and  Thadda'us  were  surnames  or  titles  con- 
ferred upon  him  for  reasons  that  can  only  be 
conjectured.  "Judas"  was  so  common  a  name 
as  to  call  for  some  additional  designation  to 
him  who  bore  it;  but  the  meaning  of  these 
titles  is  so  obscure  as  scarcely  to  warrant  the 
attemiit  at  interpretation.  Nor  is  it  jiossible  to 
tell  what  "  Judas  of  James  "  means.  The  phrase 
"brother  of  James,"  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Epistle  of  Jude,  has  led  to  a  similar  filling  up 
of  the  ellipsis  here ;  but  it  is  not  certain  that 
this  Judius  was  the  author  of  the  Epistle, 
neither  is  it  certain  what  James  is  meant. 
And  this  filling  up  of  the  ellipsis  is  not  tlie 
usual  one,  the  word  "son"  being  the  one  that 
the  phra.se  ordinarily  calls  for.  In  our  igno- 
rance of  the  connecting  facts  it  is  best  to  leave 
the  fragmentary  record  as  we  find  it,  and  say 
that  of  this  apostle  little  is  to  be  known.  (11) 
Simon  the  t'ananite,  or  Canamran — not  Ca- 
naanite,  descendant  of  the  ancient  inhabitants 
of  the  land.  The  title  is  somewhat  obscure, 
but  is  probably  to  be  interpreted  by  the  paral- 
lel word  in  Luke  and  Acts,  Simon  the  Zealot, 
Zelotes.  It  comes  from  a  Hebrew  root  which 
sigm"fies  "  to  be  hot,"  and  was  undoubtedly  the 
Aramaic  equivalent  for  the  Greek  word  Zclotcx, 
whicii  had  been  in  u.se  since  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees  to  designate  a  sect  or  section  of  the 
Jews  who  were  most  intensely  devoted  to  the 
idea  of  nationality,  and  of  God  as  the  only 
sovereign  whom  it  was  right  for  Jews  to  obey, 
wlio  had  no  fear  of  death  or  trouble  in  defence 
of  their  views,  and  who  toward  the  end  of  the 
Jewish  period  became  reckless  and  violent  even 
to  tlie  extent  of  crime.  (See  Josephus.  Ant.. 
18.  1.)  About  A.  D.  6  they  followed  Judas  of 
Galilee,  who  led  a  popular  revolt  and  was  re- 
garded by  many  as  the  Messiah.     This  Simon, 


of  whom  we  know  nothing  more,  had  appar- 
ently been  associated  with  this  party.  The 
accei)tance  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiali  by  a  man 
who  had  been  associated  with  the  followers  of 
the  fiery  Judas  is  an  interesting  and  significant 
fact.  (12)  Judas  Iscariot  was  the  son  of  one 
Simon  who  is  himself  called  Iscariot  in  the 
best  text  of  John  0  :  71  and  13  :  20.  "  Iscariot" 
is  "  Ish-Kerioth,"  "  man  of  Kerioth,"  a  village 
of  Judah  of  uncertain  site  (jo»h.  is :  25) ;  at  least, 
this  is  tlie  usual  explanation,  and  jmibably  the 
best.  He  seems  to  have  been  the  only  apostle 
who  was  not  a  Galihean,  unless  Simon,  whose 
name  stands  next  to  his,  may  have  been  a  Ju- 
dttan,  like  himself.  As  Peter  is  first  in  all  the 
lists,  so  JufUis  is  last.  It  has  been  suspected  that 
he  was  placed  at  the  end  after  his  crime  had 
degraded  him,  but  it  is  more  likely  that  this 
was  originally  his  position.  Certainly,  Jesus 
from  the  first  knew  his  character;  and  if  this, 
as  we  have  no  rei\son  to  doubt,  wiis  a  genuine 
selection,  surely  Judas  must  have  been  the  last 
choice.  All  the  lists  mention  him  as  the  be- 
trayer, except  the  one  in  the  Acts,  from  which, 
of  course,  he  is  omitted.  Such  is  the  third  and 
last  group  of  four. 

Notice  the  use  that  Jesus  made  of  natural  re- 
lationship in  constituting  the  body  of  apostles. 
James  and  John  were  brothers,  and  were  prob- 
ably cousins  to  himself;  Peter  and  Andrew  were 
brothers;  jNIatthew  and  Thomas  were  probably 
twin-brothei-s,  and  perhaps  a  third  member  of 
their  family  was  of  the  apostolic  company.  Thus 
fully  half  of  the  twelve  were  associated  with 
their  kindred;  and,  though  "his  brethren  be- 
lieved not  on  him,"  even  Jesus  himself  was 
not  separated  wholly  from  his  kindred. 

19-30.  INTERFERENCE  OF  JESUS' 
FRIENDS.  AND  CAVIL  OF  THE  SCRIBES; 
WITH  THE  ANSWER  OF  JESUS  TO  THE 
LATTER.  PamUch,  Matt.  12  :  22-32 ;  Luke  11  ; 
14-23. — From  the  choice  of  the  apostles  our 
Lord  proceeded  to  address  them  in  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  of  which  Mark  makes  no  men- 
tion. According  to  most  harmonists,  we  are  to 
place  here  also  the  healing  of  the  centurion's 
servant,  the  raising  of  the  widow's  son  at  Nain, 
the  message  of  John  the  Baptist  in  the  prison 
to  Jesus,  the  anointing  I>v  a  pardoned  woman 
in  the  lK)use  of  a  Pharisee,  and  a  circuit  of 
Galilee  in  which  Jesus  was  accompanied  not 
only  by  the  twelve,  but  by  various  women 
whom  he  had  healed.  In  other  words,  the  whole 
of  Luke's  seventh  chapter,  with  the  first  three 
verses  of  his  eighth,  belongs  between  the  two 
clauses  of  this  m'neteenth  verse — between  the 
appointment  of  the  apostles  and  tlie  "going 


52 


MARK. 


[Ch.  III. 


20  And  the  multitude  conieth  together  again,  so»  that 
they  could  not  so  much  as  eat  bread. 

21  And  when  his  friends  heard  ';/'  it.  they  went  out 
to  lay  hold  on  him :  for  they  said,  He*  is  beside  himself. 

'22  %  And  the  .scribes  which  came  down  from  Jerusa- 
lem said,  He"^  hath  Beelzebub,  and  by  the  prince  of  the 
devils  casteth  he  out  devils. 


20  And  he  cometh  ^into  a  house.  And  the  multitude 
Cometh   together   again,  so  that  they  could   not  so 

21  much  as  eat  bread.  And  when  his  friends  heard  it, 
they  went  out  to  lay  hold  on  him  :  for  they  said.  He  is 

22  beside  him.self.  And  the  scribes  that  came  down 
from  .Jerusalem  said.  He  hath  Peelzebub,  and,  ^By 
the  priuce  of  the  demons  casteth  he  out  the  demons. 


ach.  6:  31 h  Hoa.  9:7;  John  10  :  20 c  Matt.  9  :  :U  ;  10:  25;  12:24;  Luke  11  :  15  ;  John  7  :  20  ;  8  :  48,  52.- 


home"   that  is  mentioned  immediately  after' 
it. 

19,   20.   A    new    sentence    and    paragraph 
should  begin  here.     And  they  went  into  a 

house.  Should  be,  "And  they  come  liome," 
or,  as  some  of  the  best  manuscripts  and  Tischen- 
dorf,  "And  he  conieth  home."  "Home"  is 
doubtless  Capernaum,  and  the  statement  j^lain- 
ly  allows  for  any  amount  of  journeying  mean- 
while. As  soon  as  he  had  returned  the  crowd 
was  about  him  again. — The  vivid  description  is 
peculiar  to  Mark.  So  that  they  could  not  so 
much  as  eat  bread.  So  at  chap.  G  :  31.  The 
activity  on  our  Lord's  own  part  is  left  to  be  in- 
ferred, but  it  must  have  been  an  intense  activ- 
ity of  teaching  and  healing,  continued  we  know 
not  how  long. 

21.  His  friends  of  verse  21  are  "  his  mother 
and  his  brethren"  of  verse  31.  Their  coming 
and  calling  for  him  is  narrated  by  Matthew  and 
Luke  as  well  as  by  Mark,  but  IVIark  alone  tells 
of  their  setting  out  in  search  of  him  and  of 
their  motive.  Considerably  later  his  brethren 
did  not  believe  on  him  (john7:5),  and  probably 
they  persuaded  his  mother  on  this  occasion, 
playing,  perhaps,  upon  the  anxiety  of  mater- 
nal love.  These  "  brethren  "  appear  to  be  the 
"James  and  Joses  and  Juda  and  Simon"  of 
Mark  6  :  3.  The  question.  What  was  their  re- 
lation to  Jesus?  will  probably  never  be  settled 
with  unanimous  consent.  The  data  being  in- 
sufficient to  furnish  a  positive  decision,  tem- 
perament and  feeling,  as  well  as  theological 
prepossessions,  will  always  be  elements  in  the 
formation  of  opinions  on  the  subject.  The 
theories  arc:  (1)  That  they  were  children  of 
Joseph  and  Mary,  younger  than  Jesus ;  (2) 
That  they  were  children  of  Joseph  hy  a  former 
marriage;  (3)  Tiiat  they  were  cousins,  probably 
orphaned,  and  in  some  way  adopted  into  the 
family.  The  first  is  rejected  by  all  Roman 
Catholic  interpreters,  by  all  who  share  their 
feeling  as  to  the  superior  holiness  of  virginity, 
and  by  some  besides  wlio  feel  that  reverence  is 
best  satisfied  by  regarding  the  Only-begotten  of 
God  as  also  the  only  offspring  of  his  mother. 
Yet  the  scriptural  argument  for  it  is  very  strong 
(see  it  stated  at  length  by  Alford,  on  Matt. 
13  :  55),  and  its  adherents  claim— probably  cor- 


rectly— that  no  other  view  would  ever  have 
been  tliought  of  but  for  unscriptnral  ideas  of 
our  Lord's  mother.  If  the  first  theory  is  re- 
jected, there  is  no  choice  between  the  second 
and  the  third. — His  friends  heard  of  it — of 
the  great  tiirong  that  was  about  him  and  of  the 
busy  life  he  was  living — and  went  out  from 
their  home  in  Nazareth,  where  they  were  all 
living,  mother,  brothers,  and  sisters,  a  little 
later,  when  Jesus  visited  the  place  (chap.  6:  i-e). 
The  news  reached  them  there,  and  brought 
them  down  to  Capernaum,  a  distance  of  per- 
haps twenty  miles.  They  came  to  lay  hold 
on  him — /.  e.  by  force,  as  one  who  was  not  fit 
to  take  care  of  himself.  They  said.  He  is  be- 
side himself,  insane — a  conclusion  from  the 
excited  life  that  he  seemed  to  them  to  be  liv- 
ing ;  perhaps  the  more  plausible  from  the  quiet- 
ness and  placidity  of  the  years  that  he  spent 
with  tliem  at  Nazareth.  Strangers  misappre- 
hended him  thus  (John  lO:  20),  but  SO  did  his 
nearest  friends.  Unbelief  will  misapprehend, 
whether  its  opportunities  be  small  or  great. 
Even  the  "  mother  and  brethren  "  cannot  know 
Jesus  except  they  be  true  "  mother  and  breth- 
ren." 

22.  Mark  omits  the  occasion  of  this  con- 
versation, which  is  carefully  given  by  Matthew 
and  Luke — namely,  the  healing  of  the  blind 
and  dumb  demoniac  (Matt.  12 :  22),  which  caused 
many  to  inquire,  "Is  not  this  the  Son  of  David?" 
— i.  e.  the  Messiah.  The  scene  is  still  "  at  home," 
and  most  probably  in  the  house  of  Peter.  "  Phar- 
isees" are  present  (Matthew),  and  so  (Mark)  are 
the  scribes  which  came  down  from  Jeru- 
salem. Tliis  language  distinctly  indicates  an 
embassy,  men  who  had  come  on  purpose  to 
watch  and  harm  him.  It  is  not  to  be  assumed 
that  they  were  tlie  same  as  the  men  mentioned 
at  Luke  5  :  17,  for  some  time  had  elapsed  and 
meanwhile  Jesus  had  been  absent  from  Caper- 
naum. But,  whether  the  same  or  not,  these 
were  spies. — Indignant  at  the  suggestion  that 
this  was  the  Christ,  they  were  ready  with  their 
explanation  of  his  mighty  works,  the  reality  of 
which  they  thus  explicitly  admitted.  He  hath 
Beelzebub,  or,  as  the  best  manuscripts  agree, 
"  Beelzebul."  The  name  has  been  variously  in- 
terjireted.    The  name  from  which  it  came  was 


I 


Ch.  III.] 


MARK. 


53 


23  And  he  called  them  xinto  him,  and  said  unto  them 
in  parables,  How  can  Satan  cast  out  Satan? 

24  And  if  a  kiut;dom  be  divided  against  itself,  that 
kingdom  cannot  stand. 

2r)  And  if  a  house  be  divided  against  itself,  that 
house  cannot  stand. 

26  And  if  Satan  rise  up  against  himself,  and  be  di- 
vided, he  cannot  stand,  but  hath  au  end. 


23  And  he  called  them  unto  him,  and  said  unto  them 

24  in  parables,  How  can  Satan  cast  out  Satan?    And  if 
a  kingdom  be  divided  against  itself,  that  kingdom 

2!)  cannot  stand.     And  if  a  house  be  divided  against 

2G  itself,  that  house  will  not  be  able  to  stand.     And  if 

Satan  hath  risen  up  against  himself,  and  is  divided, 


Baal-ze-bub,  "  lord  of  flies,"  the  god  of  the  Phil- 
istines worshipped  at  Ekron  (2  Kings  1 : 2)  and  con- 
sulted as  an  oracle.  The  god  was  named,  doubt- 
less, from  his  supposed  control  over  the  swarms 
of  Hies  and  similar  insects  that  torment  the  East. 
After  a  time  the  Jews,  thinking  all  heathen  de- 
ities to  be  evil  spirits,  adopted  this  name  as  a  title 
of  the  chief  of  evil  s|)irits,  but  changed  it  by  one 
letter,  making  Beelzebub  into  Beelzebub  Some 
think  that  in  this  change  they  intentionally  de- 
graded and  insulted  it,  even  as  a  word,  by  turning 
it  into  a  name  which  meant  "  lord  of  dung"  or 
"of  the  dunghill."  But  others,  apparently  with 
better  reason,  make  it  mean  "  lord  of  the  man- 
sion "  or  "of  the  dwelling" — i.  e.  lord  of  the 
place  in  which  evil  spirits  dwell,  or,  substan- 
tially, "head  of  the  family  of  evil  spirits,"  he 
who  rules  them  as  a  man  rules  his  household. 
This  sense  best  corresponds  to  the  form  of  the 
word  (Mi'iier)  and  best  suits  the  allusions  in  the 
New  Testament.  So  here :  "  He  hatli  Bcelze- 
bul  "  means  "  he  is  possessed  by  the  spirit  who 
is  lord  of  all  the  rest,  and  who  orders  tliem  in 
and  out  at  his  y>leasure,  as  a  man  commands 
his  servants." — Thus  the  second  clause  of  their 
charge  is  the  application  of  the  first.  By  the 
prince  of  the  devils  casteth  he  out  devils, 
or  demons.  In  thetireck  the  use  of  the  recitative 
hoti  ("  that ")  before  each  of  these  clauses  seems 
to  indicate  that  two  separate  remarks  are  quoted. 
One  says,  "that  lie  hath  Beelzebub"  Another, 
"that  l)y  the  {)rince  of  the  demons  casteth  he 
out  demons."  Luke  adds  that  others,  tempting 
him,  asked  of  him  a  sign  from  heaven. 

23-26.  The  whole  twenty-third  verse  is  pe- 
culiar to  ]\Iark.  He  called  them — the  scribes 
from  Jerusalem — bespeaking  their  attention  and 
bringing  them  face  to  face  with  himself  and 
their  own  words.  The  wonderfid  calmness  and 
self-control  of  this  reply  cannot  be  too  distinctly 
noticed  in  connection  with  the  fearfiU  charge 
that  had  just  been  brought  against  liim.  No 
more  terrible  accusation  than  this  was  possible ; 
it  was  the  direct  charge  of  a  positive  and  prac- 
tical league  with  infernal  powers.  But  he, 
"  when  he  was  reviled,  reviled  not  again  :  when 
he  Buffered,  he  threatened  not "  (1  Pet.  2 :  23). — He 
said  unto  them  in  parables.  In  illustrative 
comparisojis.  The  word  does  not  require  a 
narrative,  such  as  we  often  a-ssociate  with  it. 
The  point  lies  in  the  fact  of  a  comparison.   But 


here  the  fact  to  be  confirmed  is  given  in  the 
first  question  (verse  23) ;  it  is  then  confirmed 
and  illustrated  by  two  comparisons,  of  the 
kingdom  and  the  household,  in  verses  24,  25 ; 
and  it  is  restated  directly  in  verse  26. — How 
can  Satan  cast  out  Satan  ?  The  principle 
is  that  no  intelligent  power  works  against  itself 
and  defeats  its  own  purposes.  Observe  what  is 
here  assumed  :  it  is  assumed  that  the  dominion 
of  Satan  is  an  intelligent  dominion,  with  cha- 
racter and  purposes ;  that  the  kingdom  of  evil 
is  one  intelligent  kingdom,  managed  by  one 
mind  who  knows  what  he  is  doing.  The  in- 
dividual spirits  that  torment  men  are  not  iden- 
tified personally  with  Satan,  but  they  are  iden- 
tified morally  with  him  ;  so  that  their  presence 
is  his  presence,  and  when  they  are  oast  out  he 
is  cast  out.  Now,  it  is  said  that  in  a  kingdom 
there  must  be  unity  of  coinisel,  illustrated  first 
by  the  case  of  a  kingdom  among  men.  It  is 
notorious  that  divided  counsels,  going  into 
action,  are  the  ruin  of  a  state;  divide<l  coun- 
sels or,  more  exactly,  contradictory  counsels 
— not  between  rulers  and  subjects,  but  in  the 
government  itself.  How,  then,  if  the  king- 
dom of  "the  prince  of  the  demons"  be  thus 
divided  against  it.self  and  act  against  its  own 
purposes?  Illustrated  ne.xt  by  the  case  of  a 
household,  regarded,  not  as  made  up  of  indi- 
viduals, who  may  disagree,  but  as  under  the 
rule  of  a  "  hou.seh older,"  "goodman  of  the 
house,"  "  lord  of  the  mansion."  If  it  acts 
against  the  character  and  counsels  that  govern 
it,  it  will  be  a  failure.  How,  then,  if  the  "  lord 
of  the  mansion  "  be  thus  divided  against  him- 
self, acting  for  the  defeat  of  his  own  work? 
And  now  is  nuide  the  application.  If  Satan 
were  casting  out  demons,  he  would  be  rising 
up  against  himself.  His  sole  purpose  is  to  in- 
jure men.  If  he  brings  in  health,  calmness, 
purity,  reason,  godly  gratitude,  piety,  to  the 
souls  of  men,  and  if  he  sets  them  free  from 
the  bondage  by  which  they  are  held  away  from 
these  blessings,  he  will  be  acting  directly  against 
his  own  nature.  Such  a  work  as  that  of  Jesus 
cannot  possibly  be  attributed  to  him,  any  more 
than  demoniacal  possession  can  be  attributed  to 
God.  Judge  a  work  by  its  nu>ral  afHnities.  If 
it  is  good,  it  is  not  of  the  devil,  for  he  never 
delivers  men  from  evil.  If  such  a  rising  up  of 
Satan  against  himself  as  the  work  of  Clirist 


64 


MARK. 


[Ch.  III. 


27  No"  man  can  enter  into  a  strong  man's  house,  and 
spoil  his  goods,  except  lie  will  (irst  bind  the  strong 
man;  and  then  he  will  spoil  his  house. 

28  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  All'  sins  shall  he  forgiven 
unto  the  sons  of  men,  and  blasphemies  wherewith  so- 
ever they   shall  blaspheme: 

2y  But  he  that  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy 
Shost"  hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  in  danger  of 
eternal  damnation : 

30  Because  they  said.  He  hath  an  unclean  spirit. 


27  he  cannot  stand,  hut  hath  an  end.  But  no  one  can 
enter  into  the  hou.se  of  the  strong  mitn,  and  spoil 
his  goods,  except  he  first  bind  the  strong  man;  and 

28  then  he  will  sjioil  his  house.  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
All  their  sins  shall  be  forgiven  unto  the  sons  of  men. 
and  their  blasphemies  wherewith  soever  they  shall 

29  blasi)heme:  but  whosoever  shall  blaspheme  against 
the  Holy  Spirit  hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty 

30 of  an  eternal  sin:  because  they  said,  He  hath  an 
unclean  spirit. 


a  Isa.  49;  24,  26;  61  : 1  ;  Matt.  12:29 6  Matt.  12  :  31 ;  Luke  12: 10 c  Heb.  10:29. 


would  be  were  proved  real,  there  would  be 
more  tlian  danger  to  his  kingdom.  He  can- 
not stand,  but  hath  an  end,  would  be  the 
true  word.  A  kingdom  so  broken  would  be  no 
kingdom  at  all. 

27.  More  than  this  does  Christ's  work  mean. 
The  verse  slunild  begin  with  "but" — But  no 
man  can  enter,  etc.  Not  only  does  Clirist's 
merciful  and  lioly  work  prove  him  to  be  no 
ally  of  Satan,  but,  if  Satan's  kingdom  is  being 
taken  away  from  liim,  the  fact  proves  the  pres- 
ence of  Satan's  conqueror.  No  one  can  plunder 
the  property  of  a  strong  "  lord  of  the  mansion  " 
until  he  has  bound  the  "  lord  of  the  mansion  " 
liimself ;  so,  if  Jesus  is  doing  a  great  triumphant 
work  of  mercy  in  setting  men  free  from  the  in- 
ferior agents  of  Satan's  kingdom,  lie  must  al- 
ready be  master  over  Satan  himself.  The  defeat 
of  the  Lord  precedes  the  defeat  of  the  servants; 
if  the  master  were  at  liberty  and  had  the  power, 
lie  would  not  suffer  his  goods  to  be  spoiled. — 
Perhajis  there  is  a  special  touch  of  triumph  in 
the  closing  words.  And  then  he  will  spoil 
his  house  ;  as  if  Jesus  were  regarding  the 
end  as  absolutely  sure  and  the  work  as  actually 
begun.  Compare  Joliii  12:31:  "Now  is  the 
judgment  of  this  world ;  now  shall  the  prince 
of  this  world  be  cast  out."  Here  speaks,  in 
Jesus,  the  consciousness  that  lie  is  absolutely 
the  conqueror  and  destroyer  of  Satan's  king- 
dom. Here,  as  a  transition  to  the  solemn  words 
that  Mark  adds  immediately,  Matthew  and 
Luke  insert,  "  He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against 
me;  and  lie  that  gathereth  not  with  me  scatter- 
eth  abroad."  There  are  only  two  sides  in  this 
conflict,  and  they  are  the  side  of  the  "strong 
man  armed  "  and  the  side  of  the  "  stronger  than 
he."  Not  to  be  with  the  conqueror  of  Satan  is 
to  be  with  Satan. 

28-30.  But,  though  he  answered  the  hor- 
rible charge  so  patiently,  he  did  not  fail  to  show 
how  fearful  a  thing  it  was,  or  might  be,  to  make 
it.  Li  him  was  no  implacable  resentment  of 
personal  injury;  words  spoken  against  liim 
might  l)e  forgiven,  and  all  sins  and  blas- 
phemies were  in  general  within  the  reach  of 
pardon.    But  one  sin  was  beyond  the  reach  of 


pardon — the  blaspheming  against  the  Holy 
Spirit. — The  announcement  of  pardon  for  sins 
in  general  is  much  more  elaborate  and  em- 
phatic in  Mark  than  in  Mattliew  (Luke  omits 
all  reference  to  blasphemies).  The  grouping  of 
words  in  the  Greek  is  such  as  to  throw  the 
strongest  po.ssible  emphasis  on  "all  "■ — all  sins 
and  blasphemies.  Mark  omits,  while  Mat- 
thew mentions,  the  pardonableness  of  "  speak- 
ing a  word  against  the  Son  of  man." — The  key 
for  the  understanding  of  tlie  "unpardonable 
sin  "  must  be  sought  in  the  words,  He  hath  an 
unclean  spirit,  or  "  He  hath  Beelzebul,"  as 
interpreted  above.  Jesus  did  not  say  that  these 
men  had  committed  the  sin  that  hath  no  for- 
giveness, but  he  did  say  that  that  sin  lay  in  the 
direction  iu  which  their  sin  was  leading  them. 
The  sin  thus  suggested  is  the  instinctive  attrib- 
uting of  holy  divine  works  to  an  evil  source. 
It  is  the  denial  that  good  is  good.  This  is  the 
application  in  the  Messianic  age  of  Isaiah's  de- 
nunciation (5:20):  "Woe  unto  them  that' call 
evil  good,  and  good  evil ;  that  put  darkness  for 
light,  and  light  for  darkness ;  that  put  bitter  for 
sweet,  and  sweet  for  bitter."  The  Holy  Spirit 
is  the  supreme  agent  of  good  among  men  ;  and 
when  a  man  commits  the  sin  against  liim  of 
which  Jesus  speaks,  he  calls  the  Holy  Spirit's 
good,  evil,  doing  it  out  of  a  heart  that  has  lost 
all  sense  of  genuine  good  and  is  spiritually 
blind.  No  man  will  commit  this  sin  until  the 
sense  of  right  and  wrong,  of  good  and  evil,  lias 
become  utterly  perverted  and  even  the  holy 
work  of  God  is  without  beauty  to  the  soul. 
When  that  work  appears  to  a  man  to  be  an 
evil  work  whose  aftinities  are  with  hell  rather 
than  with  heaven,  then  this  sin  becomes  pos- 
sible to  him. 

Hath  never  forgiveness.  Literally,  "  hath 
not  forgiveness  unto  the  age,"  elstonniona — i.  e. 
hi  xtennun.,  for  ever.  So  John  4  :  14 ;  11  :  26 ;  1 
Cor.  8  :  13,  where  the  phrase  eis  ton  aidna  is  used 
with  a  negative  i)article  to  exjiress  the  idea  of 
"never"  in  the  strongest  manner.  So  here, 
"Hath  never  forgivene-ss"  well  represents  the 
thought.— But  is  in  danger  of  eternal 
damnation.     More  accurately,  "but  is  guilty 


Ch.  III.] 


MARK. 


55 


31  IT  There  came  then  his  lirethrcii  luiil  his  mother,  ,  31  And  there  come  liis  motlier  and  his  brethren  ;  and, 
and,  standing  without,  sent  unto  liim,  calling  him.  i       standing  without,  they  sent  unto  him,  calling  him. 

32  An<l  the  multitude  sat  about  him;  and  they  said  I  32  And  a  multitude  wa:^  sitting  about  him;  and  they 
unto  him.  Heboid,  thy  mother  and  thy  brethren  with-  say  unto  him,  Behold,  thy  mother  and  thy  brethren 
out  seek  for  thee. 


a  Matt.  12  :  46-48  ;  Luke  8  :  19,  21. 


of  an  eternal  sin."  (1)  The  word  krixeos  (wliicli 
would  mean,  however,  "judgmont,"  and  not 
"damnation")  gives  place  in  the  best  text  to 
amariematus,  "£in,"  the  same  word  as  in  the 
preceding  verse.  All  sins,  etc.  It  means,  not 
the  act  of  sinning,  but  the  sinful  act,  the  sin 
conniiitted.  (2)  "  An  eternal  sin  "  cannot  mean 
endless  transgression,  an  eternal  continuance  of 
sinning,  for  the  reason  just  given :  the  word  is 
not  "sinning,"  but  "sin."  An  eternal  sin  is  a 
sin  of  eternally  abiding  guilt.  The  duration  of 
the  sin— t.  e.  of  the  guilt  of  the  sin— is  meas- 
ured by  amnios,  which  corresponds  to  the  eis  ton 
aidna,  in  sctcrnuin,  to  which  the  unpardonable- 
ness  of  the  sin  is  said  to  extend.  (3)  To  this 
corresponds  the  word  cnochoK,  wliich  witli  the 
dative  may  mean  "  in  danger  of"  or  "  exposed 
to,"  as  in  Matt.  5  :  21,  "  in  danger  of  tlie  judg- 
ment," but  with  the  genitive,  as  liere,  it  means, 
most  naturally,  "guilty  (jf"— "guilty  of  an 
eternal  sin."  Thus  the  sinner  "  hath  not  for- 
giveness for  ever,  but  shall  be  guilty,"  wlien  he 
has  blasplieraed  against  tlie  Holy  Spirit,  "of 
an  eternally  abiding  sin  " — a  sin  whose  guilt  is 
never  removed  from  his  soul  l)y  i)ardon. 

As  to  the  cjuality  of  unpanlunablcne.ss,  (1)  to 
suppose  that  God  ever  arbitrarily  selects  any 
sin  and  says  tliat  he  will  not  forgive  it  is  en- 
tirely inconsistent  with  what  we  know  of  his 
character.  He  always  forgives  the  truly  pen- 
itent, and  no  sin  is  in  itself  of  too  great  guilt 
to  be  pardoned.  If  any  sin  is  unpardonable,  it 
is  so  because  of  its  effect  upon  the  sinner's 
heart,  rendering  lum  incapal)le  of  receiving 
pardon.  (2)  The  sin  that  is  here  mentioned  is 
a  natural  and  spontaneous  act  of  spiritual  in- 
sensibility. Even  of  itself  it  reveals  the  fact 
that  tlie  sinner  is  beyond  the  reach  of  spiritual 
influences.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  is  condemned 
as  the  agent  of  evil,  what  power  is  left  that 
can  move  the  heart?  When  such  a  state  is 
readied,  it  is  morally  impossible  that  the  sin- 
ner should  be  forgiven,  because  it  is  morally 
impossii)le  that  lie  should  repent.  (.3)  All  such 
ideas  as  tliat  this  sin  is  quickly  and  easily  com- 
mitted or  conunitted  unconsciously  are  in  the 
sharpest  opposition  to  the  Scrii)tures.  An  un- 
pardonable sin  can  be  nothing  less  than  the  sin 
that  comes  as  the  grand  result  of  a  .sinful  life. 
(4)  Any  one  who  fears  that  he  has  committed 
the  unpardonable  sin  has  not  committed  it,  for 


it  implies  total  indiiference  to  good.  No  tender- 
hearted sinner  need  fear  that  he  is  beyond  tho 
reach  of  pardon.  (5)  Yet  it  is  ea.sy  to  see  that 
this  sin  is  not  impossible.  Our  Lord  did  not 
himself  judge  the  Pharisees  as  guilty  of  it  or 
enable  us  to  judge  any  one,  but  it  is  plain  that 
the  sin  was  po.ssible  to  them,  and  is  possible  to 
others  besides  tliem.  Sin  hardens  the  heart; 
and  it  may  so  harden  the  heart  tliat  God  can- 
not, consistently  with  the  nature  that  he  has 
given  to  man,  enter  and  renew  it. 

Matthew  and  Luke  record  considerable  addi- 
tions to  this  discourse  Jis  given  by  Mark  (Matt. 

12  :  3.3-45  ;  Luke  U  :  '.'4-36).      TllC   Saying   aboUt  the  sill 

against  the  Holy  Spirit,  Luke  records  in  an- 
other connection  {12:10). 

31-35.  COMING  OF  OUR  LORD'S  KINS- 
MEN, AND  HIS  ANSWER  CONCERNING 
HIS  TRUE  KINSMEN.  Fandlds,  Matt.  12: 
46-50;  Luke  8  :  19-21. 

31,  32.  They  had  come  "  to  take  him."  (See 
note  on  verse  21.)  Mark  has  meanwhile  de- 
scribed the  scene  in  which  they  found  him 
and  the  conversation  in  which  he  was  engaged. 
He  graphically  shows  tliein  coming,  standing 
without,  and  sending  their  message  in  through 
the  crowd  wliich  they  could  not  penetrate.  A 
multitude  sat  about  him.  Not  "the  mul- 
titude." Some  manuscripts  (and  Tischendorf, 
not  tlie  revisei-sj  read,  "  Behold,  tliy  mother  and 
thy  brethren  and  thy  sisters  without  are  seeking 
thee."  The  sisters  are  mentioned  at  Mark  6  :  3. 
but  we  know  nothing  of  their  names  or  his- 
tory. His  mother,  coming  as  his  mother,  would 
doubtless  have  been  welcomed;  but  an  intru- 
sive coming  of  his  kindred  to  interfere  with  his 
work  was  (juite  anotlier  matter.  Now  that  he 
was  fulh"  "  about  liis  Father's  business,"  it  was 
even  more  necessary  than  at  the  beginning  of 
his  work  (John  2 : 4)  that  his  mother  should  leave 
him  to  his  Fatlier's  guidance.  Tlie  moment, 
too,  was  a  .solemn  one;  he  had  just  been  speak- 
ing of  the  deadly  opposition  between  the  two 
kingdoms,  and  was  in  a  frame  of  mind  to  prize 
most  highly  those  wiio  were  "  with  liim  "  and 
were  not  "scattering  abroad."  Any  attempt  to 
"scatter  abroad,"  to  weaken  his  work,  would 
then  be  especially  painful  to  his  soul,  and  the 
more  if  it  came  from  those  who  ought  to  know 
him  well.  Yet  in  their  coming  (at  least,  we 
may  be  sure,  in  his  mother's)  there  was  kind- 


56 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IV. 


33  And  he  answered  them,  saying,  Who  is  my  mo- 
ther, or  my  brethren? 

34  And  lie  looked  round  about  on  them  which  sat 
about  him,  and  said.  Behold  my  mother,  and  my 
brethren  ! 

35  For  whosoever  shall  do"  the  will  of  God,  the  same 
is  my  brother,  and  my  sister,  and  mother. 


33  without  seek  for  thee.     And  he  answereth  tliem,  and 

3-1  saith,  Who  is  my  mother  and  my  brethren?    And 

looking  round  on  them  that  sat  round  about  him, 

he  saith,   Behold,   my   mother   and    my   brethren ! 

35  For  whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  dod,  the  same 

is  my  brother,  and  sister,  and  mother. 


CHAPTER    IV. 


AND'  he  began  again  to  teach  by  the  sea  side :  and 
there  was  gathered  unto  him  a  great  multitude,  so 
that  he  entered  into  a  ship,  and  sat  in  the  .sea ;  and  the 
whole  multitude  was  by  the  sea  on  the  land. 


1  And  again  he  began  to  teach  by  the  sea  side.  And 
there  is  gathered  unto  him  a  very  great  multitude, 
so  that  he  entered  into  a  boat,  and  sat  in  the  sea; 
and  all  the  multitude  were  by  the  sea  on  the  land. 


a  James  1  :  25 ;  1  John  2:17 b  Matt.  13: 1,  etc.  i  Luke  8:4,  etc. 


ness,  but  kindness  how  ignorant  and  mistaken ! 
With  what  faults  of  friends  he  had  to  bear,  as 
well  as  with  evil  in  enemies !  Not  without 
pain,  however,  can  he  have  given  to  his  mother 
this  rebuff.  It  was  necessary ;  but  he  was  a 
genuine  son,  and  had  a  son's  grateful  and  loyal 
heart  toward  his  mother.  His  dying  act  of 
care  for  her  (john  19 :  26)  was  a  more  congenial 
act  to  liis  heart. 

33-35.  Who  is  my  mother,  or  my  breth- 
ren ?  As  if  he  did  not  know  any  from  with- 
out wlio  might  appeal  to  him  in  that  name. — He 
looked  round  about  on  them  which  sat 
about  him.  Literally,  "  in  a  circle  about  him." 
A  graphic  touch  of  Mark,  to  which  Matthew  adds 
another:  "Stretching  out  his  hand  toward  liis 
disciples."  The  gesture  impressed  one  beholder, 
the  look  another.  Very  full  of  tenderness  and 
solemnity  must  the  look  have  been,  accompany- 
ing such  words,  for  here  is  the  adoption  of  the 
obedient. — Behold  (these  are)  my  mother, 
and  my  brethren !  for  whosoever  shall  do 
the  will  of  God,  the  same  is  my  brother, 
and  my  sister,  and  mother.  In  Luke,  "My 
mother  and  my  brethren  are  these,  who  hear 
and  do  the  word  of  God."  Compare  "  Every 
one  that  heareth  these  sayings  of  mine  and 
doeth  them  "  (Matt.  7 :  24).  The  centre  of  his 
true  kindred  is  not  the  mother,  the  brother,  or 
the  sisters,  but  the  Father.  This,  he  says,  is 
the  only  centre;  there  is  no  true  unity  with 
him  except  throtigh  spiritual  harmony  with 
the  will  of  God :  "  Whoever  would  be  ii  brother 
to  me  must  be  a  cliild  to  him."  Without  this 
even  natural  kinship  is  as  nothing.  This,  he 
also  says,  is  the  real  centre — the  centre  of  an 
actual  unity  ;  whoever  is  doing  the  will  of  God 
is  united  to  Jesus  by  a  tie  stronger  than  any  tie 
of  flesh  and  blood :  "  Whoever  is  my  Father's 
own  is  u\y  own,  one  of  my  true  kindred,  in  the 
closest  bonds."  Does  he  not  even  imj)Iy  that 
the  relation  is  as  close  and  tender  on  one  side 
tis  on  the  other? — toward  the  true  brother,  sis- 
ter, and  mother  as  toward  the  Heavenly  Fa- 
tlier?  Do  not  God  and  they  that  do  the  will 
of  God  thus  come  into  one  family  for  Jesus,  in 


which  one  and  the  same  love  reaches  out  in 
both  dii'ections?  He  said  elsewhere,  "As  the 
Father  hath  loved  me,  so  have  I  loved  you ;" 
and  this  is  almost  saying,  "As  I  love  my 
Father,  so  do  I  love  you."  Does  this  passage 
make  God  (or  the  doing  of  the  will  of  God)  the 
way  to  Christ,  rather  than  Christ  the  way  to 
God?  Yes,  in  a  sense.  Whoever  comes  to 
Christ  does  the  will  of  God  in  doing  so,  and  it 
is  in  (not  by  the  merit  of)  the  doing  of  what 
God  appoints  that  Christ  accepts  him.  In  all 
this  Jesus  did  not  disown  the  ties  of  kindred 
or  put  any  slight  upon  them ;  rather  did  he 
show  how  highly  he  esteemed  them.  What 
must  the  natural  relations  be  to  him  if  he 
can  make  them  the  illustration  of  his  relations 
both  to  God  who  sent  him  and  to  the  people 
whom  he  saves? — Notice  that  the  two  mis- 
statements respecting  Jesus,  "  He  is  beside  him- 
self" and  "  He  hath  Beelzebul,"  are  morally 
very  far  apart.  One  was  a  misunderstanding 
of  his  work — an  ignorant,  mistaken  misrepre- 
sentation in  which  there  was  at  least  room  for 
the  anxiety  of  affection,  and  in  which  he  was 
regarded  as  unfortunate.  It  im|)lied  spiritual 
ignorance,  but  not  malignity.  The  other  was 
a  malignant  refusal  to  see  good  in  him,  and  a 
spontaneous  judgment  that  liis  highest  good 
was  liighest  evil.  The  one  corresponds  to 
"  speaking  a  word  against  the  Son  of  man ;" 
while  the  other  at  least  approaches  the  unpar- 
donable sin  of  blasphemj'  against  the  Holy 
Spirit. — It  is  a  satisfaction  to  find  that  after  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  Mary,  the  mother  of  the 
Lord,  and  his  brethren  were  with  the  apostles 
in  the  upper  room,  where  they  waited  for  the 
fulfilment  of  Jesus'  promise  (Acts  1 :  u). 


1-25.  THE  PARABLE  OF  THE  SOWER, 
AND  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  IT.  Far- 
allch,  Matt.  13  :  1-23 ;  Luke  8  :  4-18. 

1.  And  he  began  again  to  teach  by  the 
sea  side.  As  before,  at  chap.  3  :  7.  After  the 
choice  of  the  apostles  he  had  returned  to  Ca- 
pernaum, there  to  find  scribes  from  Jerusalem 
watching  him,  to  be  accused  of  being  in  league 


Ch.  IV.] 


MARK. 


57 


2  And  he  taught  them  many  things  by  parables," and 
said  unto  them  in  his  doctrine, 

3  Hearken  ;'  Behold,  there  went  out  a  sower  to  sow: 

4  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  he  sowed,  some  fell  by  the 
wayside,  and  the''  fowls  ol  the  air  came  and  devoured 
it  up. 

5  And  some  fell  on  stony*  ground,  where  it  had  not 
much  earth;  and  immediately  it  sprang  up,  because  it 
had  no  depth  of  earth  : 


2  And  he  taught  them  many  things  in  parables,  and 

3  said  unto  them  in  his  teaching.  Hearken :  Behold, 

4  the  sower  went  forth  to  sow :  and  it  came  to  pass,  as 
he  sowed,  some  seed  fell  by  the  way  side,  and  the 

5  birds  came  and  devoured  it.  And  other  fell  on  the 
rocky  i/round,  where  it  had  not  much  earth :  and 
straightway  it  sprang  up,  because  it  had  no  deep- 


a  ver.  34;  Ps.  78:  2....6  ver.  9  :  23;  ch.  7  :  16.... c  Gen.  15  :  11 d  Ezek.  II  :  19;  36:26. 


with  Satan,  and  to  be  sought  by  his  kindred  as 
a  man  beside  liiniself.  After  .such  a  reception  j 
he  vvitlidrew  from  the  city ;  according  to  Mat- 
thew, on  the  very  day  of  the  events  just  re- 
corded.— But  he  was  popular  still.  When  lie 
went  out,  there  gathered  unto  him  a  great 
multitude.  Literally,  in  the  best  text,  "A 
greatest  multitude."  For  his  resorting  to  the 
boat  no  reason  is  apparent  besides  the  sufificient 
one  of  a  desire  to  escape  the  crowd  and  be  able 
to  address  them  at  better  advantage.  There  is 
no  ground  for  imagining  that  he  wished  to  be 
safe  from  attack,  after  his  exciting  words,  re- 
corded most  fully  in  Matt.  12.  He  used  the 
boat  before  to  escape  from  the  crowd,  but  now 
as  a  pulpit. 

2.  He  taught  them  many  things  in  par- 
ables. The  phrase  in  parables  occurred  at 
chap.  3  :  23,  but  in  the  teaching  of  the  same  day. 
"Parable"  lias  not  been  used  earlier  in  descrip- 
tion of  his  teaching,  except  in  reference  to  brief 
comparisons,  and  thus  only  twice  (Luke  5: 36;  6: 39). 
Now  seems  to  have  begun  the  time  of  teaching 
by  parables,  the  language  of  verses  10  and  13 
indicating  that  this  style  of  instruction  was  new 
to  the  disciples.  The  name  "parable"  is  given 
in  the  New  Testament  (1)  to  proverbial  say- 
ings, which  are  usually  condensed  comparisons, 
as  Luke  4  :  23  ( in  the  Greek) ;  (2)  to  comparisons 
without  narrative,  as  Matt.  13  :  31-33 ;  Mark  13 : 
28;  but  chieily  (3)  to  narratives  in  which  heav- 
enly things  are  illustrated  by  means  of  earthly, 
as  the  three  parables  in  Luke  15.  Archbishop 
Trench  treats  thirty-three  passages  in  the  Gos- 
pels as  parables.  These  make  up  about  one- 
third  of  our  Lord's  teaching  as  preserved  to 
us;  and  in  a  precise  classification  of  his  words 
various  shorter  sayings,  of  which  Trench  says 
nothing,  would  be  added.  This  method  of 
teaching  has  liecn  widely  employed  among  the 
Orientals,  being  well  suited  to  the  Oriental 
mind.  It  was  common  among  the  Jews,  and 
was  regarded  by  tliem  as  a  means  of  higher 
education  and  an  agency  unsuited  for  popular 
use.  It  was  especially  a  natural  method  to 
Jesus,  both  because  of  his  keen  interest  in  na- 
ture (when  was  sucli  an  ap])reciation  of  nature 
ever  expressed  as  that  of  jNIatt.  G  :  29?)  and  be- 
cause he  "  knew  what  was  in  man "  and  was 


interested  at  every  turn  in  human  life.  Yet 
his  beginning  to  employ  this  mode  of  teaching 
marks  the  fact  that  he  was  not  understood,  and 
did  not  now  expect  to  be  undei-stood  very  wide- 
ly or  very  well.  The  religious  leadei-s  were 
against  him,  the  misundei-standing  of  his  work 
was  growing  malignant,  and  the  people  who 
followed  him  were  led  by  curiosity  more  than 
by  intelligent  interest.  The  parabolic  form  of 
teaching  was  "less  open  to  attack,  better  as  an 
intellectual  and  spiritual  training  for  his  disci- 
ples, better  also  as  a  test  of  character,  and  there- 
fore as  an  education  for  the  multitude"  (Pluinp- 
tre). 

Matthew  records  seven  jiarables  in  this  con- 
nection ;  Mark  only  three,  one  of  which  he 
alone  has  preserved,  that  of  the  growth  of  the 
seed  (verses  20-29).  It  must  be  left  somewhat 
uncertain  whether  these  were  all  spoken  on 
one  day,  as  one  would  infer  from  Matthew,  01 
whether  Matthew  has  followed  his  custom  of 
grouping  and  added  something  from  other  oc» 
casions  to  the  one  day's  work. 

3-8.  The  call  to  attention.  Hearken,  is  pe- 
culiar to  Mark.  It  has  often  been  remarked 
that  our  Lord  as  he  sat  in  the  boat  may  have 
seen  the  sower  going  forth  to  his  work,  and  ob- 
served all  the  peculiarities  of  field  and  of  sow- 
ing that  enter  into  his  parable.  Stanley  says 
{Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  41H)  that  he  saw  a  field 
close  to  the  shore  of  the  lake  that  sujiplied 
every  detail  of  the  description  —  path,  birdii, 
rocks,  tliorns,  and  rich  soil.  Such  fields,  how- 
ever, with  roads  running  through  them,  are 
not  home-fields,  but  o])en  country,  remote 
from  the  dwellings  of  the  farmers,  to  which 
they  literally  go  forth  to  sow ;  thus  also  in  Ps. 
126  :  6  (  The  Land  and  the  Book,  1.  115).  In  this 
there  is  perhaps  a  quiet  confirmation  of  the  fact 
that  Jesus  had  gone  out  from  the  town  to  some 
retired  place  of  the  shore  where  such  a  field 
might  be  in  sight.— Some  fell  by  the  way- 
side. By  the  path  running  unfenccd  througli 
the  open  field.  The  path  itself,  of  coui-se,  was 
trodden  hard,  and  the  margin  of  it  was  no  good 
place  for  grain.  The  fate  of  the  seed  that  fell 
there  was  to  be  "trodden  down"  (Luke)  and 
devoured  by  the  birds.— On  stony  ground, 
or,  rather,  rocky  ground — ground  in  w'hich  the 


58 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IV. 


6  But  when  the  sun  was  up,  it  was  scorched;  and" 
because  it  had  no  root,  it  withered  away. 

7  And  some  fell  among  thorns ;''  and  the  thorns  grew 
up,  and  choked  it,  and  it  yielded  no  fruit. 

8  And  other  fell  on  good''  ground,  and  did  yield  fruit'' 
that  sprang  up  and  increased,  and  brought  forth,  some 
thirty,  and  some  sixty,  and  some  an  liundred. 

9  And  he  said  unto  them.  He  that  hath  ears  to  hear, 
let  him  liear. 

10  And''  when  he  was  alone,  tliey  that  were  about 
him  with  the  twelve  asked  of  him  the  parable. 

11  And  he  said  unto  them.  Unto/ you  it  is  given  to 
know  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom  of  God :  but  unto 


6  ness  of  earth :  and  when  the  sun  was  risen,  it  was 
scorched ;  and  because  it  had  no  root,  it  withered 

7  away.  And  other  fell  among  the  thorns,  and  the 
thorns  grew  up,  and  choked  it,  and  it  yielded  no 

8  fruit.  And  others  fell  into  the  good  ground,  and 
yielded  fruit,  growing  up  and  increasing;  and 
iirouglit  forth,  thirtyfold,  and  sixtyfold,  and  a  hun- 

9dredlold.  And  he  said.  Who  hath" ears  to  hear,  let 
him  hear. 

10  And  when  he  was  alone,  they  that  were  about  him 

11  with  the  twelve  asked  of  him  the  parables.  And  he 
said  unto  them.  Unto  you  is  given  the  mystery  of 
the  kingdom  of  God :  but  unto  them  that  are  with- 


;  Ps.  1  :  4;  James  1  :  11....5  Jer.  4  :3....c  Heb.  6:7,8....d  Col.  1:  6.... e  Matt.  13  :  10,  etc..../Eph.  1  :  9. 


underlying  ledge  of  rock  was  but  just  below 
tlie  surftice.  Tlie  ledge  often  protruded  in  such 
fields  as  Jesus  had  in  mind ;  and  where  it  was 
just  hidden  the  grain  might  find  a  warm  bed 
in  the  shallow  layer  of  earth,  and  spring  up 
the  more  quickly  by  reason  of  the  shallowness, 
as  the  i^arable  says. — But  the  grain  would  lack 
depth  of  earth  (Mark);  "root"  (Matthew); 
"moisture"  (Luke) ;  and  "when  the  sun  came 
up"  (Matthew)  it  must  wither.  —  Among 
thorns.  The  well-known  thorns  whose  roots 
remained  in  the  earth  and  were  there  before 
the  seed  was  sown,  though  they  were  out  of 
sight.  They  spring  up  in  clumps  with  a  strong 
growth,  sometimes  covering  almost  wliole  fields. 
Grain  among  them  might  grow,  but  would  be 
so  overshadowed  and  shut  in  as  to  be  fruitless. 
— On  good  ground,  which  was  abundant  in 
the  land  of  Gcnnesaret.  Every  field  was  cer- 
tain to  have  its  good  part,  rich  and  productive, 
where  the  seed  might  prosper. — Thirty,  sixty, 
an  hundred.  Thirty-fold  was  the  recognized 
ratio  in  an  ordinary  crop,  but  a  larger  yield — 
even  so  great  as  a  hundred-fold — was  not  un- 
known in  Palestine,  though  doubtless  rare.  Prob- 
ably the  language  is  partly  proverbial  and  found- 
ed upon  the  record  of  Isaac's  harvest  of  a  hun- 
dred-fold when  "  the  Lord  blessed  him  "  (oen.  26 : 
12).  Thomson  speaks  of  the  extraordinary  num- 
ber of  stalks  that  do  actually  spring  from  a  single 
root,  and  says  that  he  has  seen  in  the  Plain  of 
Sidon  more  than  a  hundred  stalks  from  one 
root,  each  with  its  head  filled  with  grain,  mak- 
ing a  yield  of  more  than  a  tliousand-fold. — In 
the  main  the  parable  is  almost  verlially  identi- 
cal in  Matthew  and  Mark ;  but  Mark  adds  the 
descriptive  words  sprang  up  and  increased 
in  verse  8,  and  inverts  the  order  t)f  Matthew  in 
mentioning  the  ratios  of  increase.  These  are 
sufficient  signs  of  independence,  especially  the 
latter.  Luke  varies  from  Matthew  and  Mark  very 
strikingly  in  the  choice  of  words,  though  not  in 
the  substance  of  the  parable.  That  he  has  pre- 
served a  separate  and  independent  remembrance 
of  the  parable  no  reader  can  possibly  doubt. 


9.  Thus,  within  the  narrow  compass  of  less 
than  a  hundred  words  (even  in  Mark's  report, 
which  is  the  longest),  Jesus  gave  a  comparison 
of  indefinite  suggestiveness  and  of  incstima'ale 
practical  worth.  He  that  hath  ears  to  liear, 
let  him  hear  is  an  emphatic  call  to  atten- 
tion, always  referring  to  what  precedes  it.  It 
is  thought  to  have  been  a  familiar  phrase  in 
the  schools  of  the  rabbis.  It  is  rather  a  call  to 
attention  than  an  appeal  to  spiritual  discern- 
ment, and  yet  such  an  appeal  is  naturally  im- 
plied. The  phrase  seems  to  have  been  used 
thrice  on  this  day  of  parables  (see  verse  23 
and  Matt.  13  :  43),  and  is  recorded  twice  besides 
in  the  teaching  of  Jesus :  Matt.  11  :  15 ;  Luke 
14  :  35  (Mark  7  :  16  is  probably  to  be  omitted). 
It  reappears,  slightly  altered  in  form,  in  the 
letters  to  the  seven  churches,  Rev.  1-3,  and  at 
Rev.  13  :  9. 

10.  When  he  was  alone — i.  e.  alone  with 
his  friends,  apart  from  the  multitude.  The 
place  and  the  exact  time  of  this  inquiry  it  is 

I  impo.ssible  to  ascertain.  —  They  that  were 
I  about  him,  w^ith  the  twelve.  Here  is  a 
sign  of  the  presence  of  a  larger  circle  of  near 
friends,  who  shared  the  intimacy  of  the  apostles 
with  tlie  Lord.  Some  such  have  already  been 
mentioned,  in  Luke  8  :  1-3. — Asked  of  him 
the  parable,  or  parables,  as  the  best  text  reads, 
corresponding  to  the  language  of  verse  2,  and 
indicating,  apparently,  that  more  than  one  par- 
able had  already  been  spoken.  It  is  quite  pos- 
sible that  this  inquiry,  though  introduced  after 
the  first  parable  because  it  drew  out  the  expla- 
nation of  that  parable,  was  not  made  until  some 
later  time. 

11,12.  The  answer  implies  some  such  question 
as  the  one  recorded  by  Matthew—"  Why  speak- 
est  thou  to  them  in  parables?" — for  it  includes  the 
reason  for  adopting  this  form  of  instruction.  To 
know  is  omitted  here  in  the  best  text,  though 
not  in  Matthew  or  Luke ;  but  the  thought  of  it 
is  implied  here. — Unto  you  it  is  given  to 
know  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.     Matthew  and  Luke,  "  to  know  the  mj'S- 


Ch.  IV.] 


MARK. 


59 


them  that  are  witlioiit,"  all  these  things  are  done  in 
parables : 

12  That'  seeiiif;  they  may  see,  and  not  perceive;  and 
hearing  they  may  hear,  and  toot  iiiulersiaud ;  lest  at 
any  time  they  should  be  converted,  and  tlitir  sins 
should  lie  forgiven  them. 

i:(  And  he  said  unto  them,  Know  ye  not  this  parable? 
and  how  then  will  ye  know  all  parables? 

14  \  The  s(iwer<^  sowetli  the  word. 

15  And  the.ve  are  they  by  the  wayside,  where  the 
word  is  sown :  hut  when  they  have  heard,  Satan 
conieth''  immediately  and  taketb  away  the  word  that 
was  sown  in  their  hearts. 


12  out, all  things  are  done  in  parables:  that  seeing  they 
may  see,  and  not  perceive;  and  hearing  they  may 
bear,  and    not  understand;  lest  haply  they  should 

ISturn  again,  and  il  >hould  be  lorgiven  them.  .\ud  he 
saith  unto  them,  Know  ye  not  this  parable?  ami  how 

14  shall  ye  know  all  the  parables?    The  sower  sowetli 

15  the  word.  And  these  are  they  by  the  way  side, 
where  the  word  is  sown  ;  and  when  they  have  heard, 
straiglitway  couictli  Satan,  and  taketh  away   the 


a  Col.  4  :  5  ;  1  Thess.  4:12;  1  Tim.  3:7. 


.b  Isa.  6:9,  10:  Johu  12  :  40;  Acts  28  :  26.  27;  Real.  II  :8....c  Is 
dl  Pet.  5:8;  Heb.  12:  9... .6  Heb.  2  :  1. 


,  32;  20;  1  Pet.  1  :  25.... 


teries."  Tlie  word  mystery  is  used  in  tlie  New 
Testament,  not  to  describe  tlieiiiiality  of  a  truth 
or  a  fact  as  "  mysterious,"  hard  to  understand. 
It  tells  rather  of  the  relations  of  a  truth  or  fact 
as  once  concealed,  but  now  revealed,  and  yet 
revealed  only  within  a  certain  circle,  as  of  the 
initiated.  A  mystery,  in  the  New  Testament, 
is  a  truth  that  must  be  made  known,  if  it  is  to 
be  known,  and  one  that  actually  is  made  known, 
by  divine  revelation,  to  those  who  liave  spiritual 
power  to  receive  it.  The  word  is  not  u.sed  in 
the  Gospels  except  liere  and  in  the  parallel 
passages,  but  it  became  a  favorite  word  with 
Paul,  and  is  found  several  times  in  the  Apoc- 
alypse. Thus  the  gospel  in  general  is  called 
a  mystery  (Romi6:2d),  and  so  is  the  truth 
regarding  the  manifestation  and  history  of 
Christ  (i  Tim. 3:16).  So,  again,  is  the  relation  of 
Chri.st  to  his  church  (Eph.5:32),  and  the  unity 
of  Jews  and  Gentiles — *.  e.  of  all  mankind — in 
Christ  (F.ph.  3:4). — The  mystery  of  the  king- 
dom of  (Jod  hei-e  is  the  revealed  truth  of  the 
kingdom.  This  '•hath  been  given,"  Jesus  say.s, 
by  the  counsel  of  (iod  to  the  disciples,  tlie  inner 
circle. — But  unto  them  that  are  without — 
without  the  ciri'le  of  Clirist — all  things  are 
done  in  parables.  These  should  Ix'omitted. 
In  parables  do  all  things  come  to  pass— reach 
their  minds;  and  parables  are  a  means  at  once 
of  revealing  and  of  concealing  truth — of  reveal- 
ing it  to  those  who  "  have  ears  to  hear,"  and  of 
concealing  it  fi-om  those  wiio  have  not.  (Com- 
jiare  Matt.  13  :  Ki  :  "  Blessed  are  your  eyes,  for 
they  see;  and  your  ears,  for  tliey  hear.")  The 
inevitable  separation  of  men,  by  the  teaching 
of  Christ,  into  those  who  hear  unto  life  and 
those  who  hear  unto  death  is  reannouiiced  by 
the  citation  of  a  terrible  i)assage  from  Isaiali 
(6:9,10)  about  the  inevitable  and  fatal  blindness 
of  the  dit;obedient.  This  separation  was  not  an 
accidental  but  a  necessary,  and  therefore  an  in- 
tended, result  of  liis  ministry  (see,  especially, 
John  9  :  39) ;  and  the  choice  of  the  parabolic 
form  was  one  of  the  steps  by  which  the  in- 
evitable separation  must  be  accomplislied.    The 


quotation  from  Isaiah,  verbally  exact  in  Mat- 
thew, is  free   and   inexact   in  Mark,   and  still 
more  so  in  Luke. 
13.  Know  ye  not  this  parable?  which  is 

not  an  obscure  one.  Tlien  ye  have  not  grasped 
the  principle. — And  how  then  will  ye  know 
all  parables  that  1  intend  to  give  you.'  Tlie 
(]uestion  is  |)eculiar  to  Mark,  and  gives  us  one 
of  his  glimp.ses  of  the  tender  tlioughtfulness  of 
our  Lord  for  his  disciples.  Here  shines  out  the 
quality  of  the  true  teacher.  This  is  "a  word 
in  season,"  in  view  of  the  cotirse  of  parables 
that  he  intends. 

14-20.  In  the  interpretation  the  language  of 
Mark  diverges  more  from  that  of  Matthew  than 
in  the  parable  itself,  though  Mark  still  has 
rather  more  in  common  with  Matthew  than 
with  Luke.  He  agrees  with  Luke,  however, 
in  retaining  the  plural  form  throughout. 

The  sower  soweth  the  word.  Of  course 
the  sower  is  primarily  the  Lord  himself,  and 
the  i)arable  represents  the  results  of  his  minis- 
try;  but  the  sower  is  also  any  "  laborer  together 
with  him  "  whom  he  semis  forth  to  his  Held. 
"Here,  ye  apostles,  and  all  ministers  of  the 
word,  foresee  the  results  of  your  ministiy." — 
The  Avord.  "Of  the  kingdom."  Matthew; 
"of  God,"  Luke.  Four  classes  of  hearers  are 
now  portrayed — not  ideally,  but  from  real  life. 
Our  Lord  had  already  met  with  them  all,  and 
his  won!  had  found  all  these  four  receptions. 
He  could  liave  named  the  hearers  wIkj  belong- 
ed to  the  various  classes.  The  i)arai)le  obtains 
a  new  freshness  and  interest  when  we  thus  think 
of  it  as  our  Lonl's  testimony  to  iiis  own  expe- 
rience. 

\.  They  by  the  way-side— i.  e.  they  that 
correspond  to  the  seed  sown  there.  Here  the 
seed  comes  literally  and  absolutely  to  naught, 
being  picked  up  from  the  hard  ground  by  tlie 
birds.  The  word  also  fails.  The  reason  is,  in 
Matthew,  that  the  hearer  "  understaiideth  it 
not;"  and,  in  consetiuence  of  this  failure  to 
understand,  the  "evil  one"  (Matthew) — Satan 
(Mark) ;  "the  devil"  (Luke) — taketh  away — or, 


60 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IV. 


IG  And  tliese  are  they  likewise  which  are  sown  ou 
stony  ground;  wlio,  wlien  they  have  heard  the  word, 
immediately  receive  it  with  gladness; 

17  And  have  no  root"  in  tliemselves,  and  so  endure 
but'  for  a  time:  afterward,  when  aftliction  or  iiersecu- 
tion  ariseth  for  tlie  word's  sake,  immediately^  they  are 
oH'eiided. 

IS  And  these  are  they  which  are  sown  among  thorns; 
such  as  hear  the  word, 

19  And  the''  cares  of  the  world,  and  the  deceitful- 


16  word  which  hath  been  sown  in  theui.  And  these 
in  like  manner  are  they  that  are  sown  u])on  the 
rocky  ;(/«ce.v,  who,  when  they  have  heard  the  word, 

17  straightway  receive  it  with  joy;  and  they  have  no 
root  in  themselves,  but  endure  for  a  while;  then, 
wlien  tribulation  or  jjersecution  ariseth  because  of 

18  the  word,  straightway  they  stumble.  And  others 
are  they  that  are  sown  among  the  thorns;  these  are 

1!)  they  that  have  heard  the  word,  and  the  cares  of  the 


o  Job  19  :  28..../(  Job27  :  10.  ...c  2  Tim.  l:15....d  I.uke  U  :  18-20;  1  Tim.  6  :  9,  17 ;  2  Tim.  4:  10. 


in  JNIattliew,  snatcheth  away — the  word  from  the 
heart.  Lake  adds,  "  Lest,  believing,  they  slioiild 
be  saved" — an  allusion  to  tlie  tliought  of  tlie 
citation  from  Isaiali.  The  understanding  tliat 
is  laclving  is  not  cliiefiy  intellectual :  it  is  that 
moral  discernment  by  whicii  trutli  is  perceived 
as  truth  and  as  divine,  and  is  made  the  posses- 
sion of  the  heart.  When  tlie  word  of  God, 
though  lieard,  is  not  thus  perceived  and  appro- 
priated, Satan  (oitr  Lord  says)  removes  it  from 
the  heart.  In  the  parable  the  variety  of  the 
means  of  removal  is  noted  by  the  mention  of 
the  birds;  in  the  interpretation  the  unity  of 
the  power  that  controls  the  means  of  removal 
is  noted  by  the  mention  of  Satan.  The  enemy 
of  good  has  a  thousand  means  and  iiiHuences 
by  which  lie  can  abstract  from  the  mind  truth 
that  has  not  sunk  into  the  heart.  Truth  left 
outside  the  heart  will  be  stolen  away ;  unappro- 
priated, it  will  be  lost.  How  much  of  the  truth 
that  is  heard  is  thus  left  on  the  surface,  spirit- 
ually un perceived— the  soul  not  knowing  that 
truth  is  there — to  be  taken  away  by  the  servants 
of  evil !  From  such  seed  a  harvest  is,  of  course, 
literally  impossible.  Very  likely  this  was  the 
largest  class  in  our  Lord's  audiences. 

2.  Sown  on  stony  ground,  t)r  the  rocky 
places.  Luke,  "  Upon  the  rock."  Here  is  the 
sharpest  contrast,  at  first  sight,  to  the  first  class: 
no  growth  and  no  promi.se  there;  (piick  growth 
and  rai'c  promise  here.  Those  had  no  percep- 
tion of  the  word:  it  lay  outside;  but  these  re- 
ceive it,  receive  it  immediately,  receive  it  iin- 
niediately  with  joy.  Yet,  notwithstanding  their 
joy  and  promptness,  the  word  gets  no  inward 
hold  upon  their  character;  it  pleases  them,  l)ut 
does  not  possess  them :  they  have  no  root  in 
tliemselves.  The  truth  does  not  reach  far  down 
into  their  nature.  Hence  they  are  temi)orary — 
jyi-fiskdinn,  a  most  suggestive  word.  Not  pos- 
sessed by  the  truth,  they  have  nothing  to  bold 
them  to  it,  and  they  are  offended  and  rej)elled 
as  soon  as  the  word  becomes  tlie  occasion  of 
aftliction  or  persecution. — Note  the  repeti- 
tion of  immediately.  When  trouble  comes, 
desertion  is  as  prompt  as  was  the  glad  rece])tion 
of  the  word.     Cases  similar  to  this  seem  to  be 


meant  in  Luke  9  :  57-G2.  (See  also  Gal.  5  :  7.) 
Somewhat  sucli  was  the  earnestness  (as  far  as 
it  went)  of  the  rich  young  man  (Markio:n). 
Many  such  temporary  followers  our  Lord  must 
have  had,  and  he  may  easily  have  found  them 
at  first  the  most  enthusiastic  of  all.  Innume- 
rable have  they  been  in  the  history  of  his  king- 
dom.— All  the  iiitenscr  activities  of  his  kingdom 
have  this  for  their  dark  shadow  of  evil,  the  pro- 
ducing, through  exc-itement  or  temporary  zeal, 
of  disciples  who  have  no  root  in  themselves, 
no  subduing  power  of  righteousness  and  love 
upon  the  character.  So  precious  is  religion  that 
the  necessity  of  "deep  root"  for  it  is  too  easily 
overlooked  :  we  think  it  enough  if  the  precious 
seed  is  growing.  Yet  there  is  no  good  fruit  from 
religion  that  does  not  reach  down  deep  enough 
to  have  an  enduring  life.  Root  in  himself  is 
necessary  to  a  Christian — a  life  strong  enough 
to  otitlive  any  excitement  in  which  it  may  have 
sprung  up,  and  to  survive  hours  of  severe  test- 
ing and  crises  of  discouragement  (ps.  i39  :  23, 24). 

3.  Sown  among  thorns.  Vei-se  18  begins, 
in  the  best  text,  "And  others  are  they  tliat  are 
sown  among  the  thorns."  Quite  another  class 
is  now  to  be  introduced.  This  distinct  clause, 
in  Mark,  with  the  word  "t)thers,"  divides  the 
parable  into  two  pai'ts,  and  now,  leaving  the 
seed  that  does  not  survive  till  the  time  of  liar- 
vest,  our  Lord  proceeds  to  that  which,  with  or 
without  fruit,  lives  through  the  season.  Here 
is  not  premature  and  temporary  growth,  but 
overshadowed  and  enfeebled  life.  The  word  is 
received,  perlia{>s  thoughtfully,  and  the  life  of 
obedience  to  it  begins  ;  but  the  soul  is  preocctit 
pied,  and  the  word  cannot  draw  to  its  own  serr 
vice  the  powers  of  the  man.  The  thorns  repre- 
sent prepossessions,  preoccupations,  iiiHucnces, 
that  absorb  the  soul  and  keep  it  away  from  de- 
votion to  a  Christian  life.  These  are:  (1)  The 
cares  of  this  Avorld.  Literally,  "  Of  the  age," 
the  current  life  of  man  in  his  present  state.  The 
original  word  for  cares  (inenniiiai,  "  drawings  in 
difi'erent  ways")  suggests  the  distractions  of  mind 
that  accompany  interest  in  this  world's  affairs. 
These  cares  are  not  all  sinful ;  but,  whether  sin- 
ftil  or  not,  they  may  absorb  the  power  of  the  man, 


Ch.  IV.] 


MARK. 


61 


ncss"  of  riclies,  and  thf!'  lusts  of  other  thiiiRS  entering 
in,  choke  the  woni,  ami  it  becomelh  unfruitful.'' 

21)  And  tliese  are  they  which  are  sown  on  good 
ground;  such  as  hear  the  word,  and  receive  U,  and 
bring  forth  fruit,''  some  thirty-fold,  some  sixty,  and 
some  an  hundred. 


•world,  and  the  deceitfulness  of  riches,  and  the  lusts 
of  other  things  entering  in,  choke  the  word,  and  it 
20  becomelh  unfruitful.  And  those  are  tliey  that  were 
sown  upon  the  good  ground  ;  such  as  hear  the  word, 
and  accept  it,  and  bear  fruit,  thirtyfold,  and  sixty- 
fold,  and  a  hundredfold. 


a  Prov.  23  :  5.... 4  1  Jolin  2  :  16,  17 c  Isa.  5  :  2,  4 d  Rom.  7:4;  Col.  1  :  10 ;  2  Pet.  1  :  8.- 


-1  Or,  age 


and  so  dwarf  hi.s  Christian  life.  (2)  The  deceit- 
fulness  (or  deceit)  of  riches.  The  power  of 
wealtli,  whetlicr  possessed  or  only  sought,  to 
hliiiil  tlie  mind  and  hold  it  hy  false  pretences — 
tiie  delusive  promises  that  wealtii  holds  out  to 
him  who  seeks  it,  and  the  insinuating  decep- 
tiveness  of  prosperity  and  plenty.  When 
wealtli  or  the  thought  of  it  sets  a  false  standard 
for  the  desires ;  when  it  ohscures  the  distinc- 
tion hctween  good  and  evil  in  the  means  of 
gain ;  when  it  generates  pride  and  occasions 
e.xtravagance ;  when  it  gives  its  i)ossessor  an 
infhu'iice  tiiat  of  riglit  belongs  only  to  charac- 
ter,— then  it  chokes  tlie  word  of  trutli  and 
righteousness.  (3)  The  lusts  of  other 
things.  Literally,  "The  desires  concerning 
tlie  rest  of  things."  In  Luke,  "The  pleasures 
of  life."  These  are  the  various  longings,  the 
vagrant  desires,  after  tlic  various  things  that 
"are  not  of  the  P''ather,  but  are  of  the  world," 
"  tlie  lust  of  the  flesh,  and  the  lust  of  the  eyes, 
and  tiie  pride  of  life  "  (i  jmm  ■>  -.  le).  These  influ- 
ences, entering  in — taking  possession  of  the 
.soul — choke  the  Avord,  and  it  (the  word) 
becoineth  unfruitful.  The  licarers  of  this 
class  are  like  grain  in  the  midst  of  a  thorn- 
dump  ;  it  lives  tlirough  tiie  season,  but  tlie 
thorns  have  so  absorbed  the  strength  of  the 
soil  tiiat  the  grain  has  no  power  to  mature  its 
fruit.  Luke,  "They  bring  no  fruit  to  perfec- 
ti(m,"  tliey  mature  nothing  and  yield  notliing. 
This  part  of  the  parable  is  an  expansion  of  the 
text,  "  Xo  man  can  serve  two  masters  "  (Matt.  6 : 2«). 
(See  also  .Tames  1 :  (5-8.)  It  is  a  sad  and  weighty 
truth  that  double-mindedness  in  the  hearer  may 
render  unfruitful  tiie  word  of  God  itself 

4.  On  good  ground;  such  a.s  hear  the 
word  and  receive  it.  "  Understand  it"  (Mat- 
thew) s])iritually,  as  the  first  class  do  not ;  "  keep 
it,"  or  hold  it  fast,  "in  an  hone.st  and  good  heart" 
(Luke).  Tlie  good  soil  is  tiie  sincere  and  obe- 
dient lieart,  wliich  appreciates  and  appropriates 
the  trutli.  These  hearers  "  bring  forth  fruit 
in  patience"  (Luke),  recognizing  that  it  is  not 
suflicient  to  endure  "  for  a  wliile."  Their  fruit- 
fulness  has  its  degrees  — thirty-fold,  sixty, 
and  an  hundred— but  they  are  all  fruitful  to 
the  glory  of  God.  The  fruit  consists  in  the 
character  and  works  of  holy  virtue  which  the 
truth  of  Clirist  will  produce.     (See  Gal.  5  :  22, 


23  ;  2  Pet.  1  :  5-8.)  The  joy  of  harvest  is  a  joy 
both  to  tlie  soul  and  to  the  Lord. 

It  is  necessary  tiiat  the  seed  (1)  take  root; 
(2)  take  deep  root;  (3)  take  deep  root  in  a  clear 
field ;  (4)  take  deep  root  in  a  clear  field  of  good 
soil.  It  is  of  no  use  for  the  truth  to  fiiU  a.s  it 
were  by  the  wayside;  yet  it  is  not  enough  to 
avoid  the  wayside  and  receive  the  truth  into 
the  soul.  It  niu.st  not  fall  upon  tlie  rock,  it 
must  go  deep  into  the  soul ;  yet  it  is  not 
enough  to  avoid  the  rock  and  receive  the  truth 
to  a  deep  and  permanent  place  in  the  soul.  It 
must  be  kept  out  of  the  thorns,  the  repressing 
influences  of  worldly  and  selfish  life,  and  be 
patiently  guarded  and  obeyed  in  a  good  and 
honest  heart.  The  four  classes  of  hearers  are 
(1)  heartless;  (2)  shallow-hearted;  (3)  half- 
hearted ;  (4)  whole-hearted.  In  the  first,  the 
divine  life  does  not  spring  up ;  in  the  second, 
it  springs  up,  but  only  to  a  temporary  and 
disappointing  growtli ;  in  tlie  third,  it  springs 
up  to  a  permanent  but  stunted  and  profitless 
growth  ;  in  the  fourth,  it  springs  up  to  a  pros- 
perous and  productive  gi-owth.  There  are  at 
lea.st  three  ways  to  be  fruitless,  only  one  to  be 
fruitful.  Three  classes  of  our  Lord's  hearers 
out  of  four  the  word  preached  did  not  profit 
(neb.  4:2);  and  the  case  is  still  the  same.  The 
same  classes  still  e.xist — three  fruitless  to  one 
fruitful.  But  then  one  class  out  of  four  was 
not  fruitless ;  here  was  the  triumph  of  grace, 
and  here  is  the  triumph  still.  There  is  gen- 
uine fruit  unto  God  in  his  field  ;  and  the  work 
of  the  gospel  is  to  be  glorious  and  honorable  in 
enlarging  this  successful  cla.ss  and  diminishing 
the  others.  Study  the  parable  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  thorns,  already  in  possession  of 
the  soil,  and  resenting  the  entrance  of  the 
grain  ;  also  from  the  point  of  view  occupied  by 
the  soil,  supposing  it  to  be  intelligent,  with  the 
power  of  directing  its  nourisliing  influences  to 
that  which  it  regards  as  of  the  highest  worth. 

21-25.  CAUTION  AGAINST  MISUNDER- 
STANDING OF  HIS  PURPOSE  IN  TEACH- 
ING BY  PARABLES.  Parallel,  Luke  8  :  IS- 
IS.— There  is  no  parallel  in  Matthew.  Almost 
all  of  these  verses  are  found  in  Matthew,  but 
they  are  scattered  here  i-nd  there,  and  not 
brought  at  all  to  the  illustration  of  the  point 
for  which  they  are  used  in  Mark  and  Luke. 


62 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IV. 


21  H  And  he  said  unto  them,  Is  a  candle  brought  to 
be  put  under  a  bushel,  or  under  a  bed?  and  not  to  be 
set  on  a  candlestick  ? 

22  For"  thei-e  is  nothing  hid,  which  shall  not  be 
made  manilest ;  neither  was  any  thing  kept  secret,  but 
that  it  should  come  abroad. 

23  If  any  man  have  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear. 


21  And  he  said  unto  them,  Is  the  lamp  brought  to  be 
put  under  the  bushel,  or  under  the  bed,  aiul  not  to 

22  be  put  on  the  stand  ?    For  there  is  nothing  hid,  save 
that  it  should  be  manifested  ;  neither  was  nui/fkiiig 

2:i  made  secret,  but  that  it  should  come  to  light.  If  any 


a  Eccles.  12  :  14 ;  Matt.  10  :  26;  Luke  12  :  2;  1  Cor.  4  :  5. 


There  is  notliing  strange  in  this,  for  these  say- 
ings are  mainly  of  the  striking,  proverbial  kind, 
capable  of  many  applications,  and  very  likely 
used  many  times  by  our  Lord.  The  passage 
that  is  here  made  up  from  them  is  so  admi- 
rably appropriate  to  the  connection  that  we 
cannot  possibly  suppose  it  to  have  been  made 
up  by  compilation  :  it  was  certainly  spoken 
thus.  In  its  connection,  this  is  one  of  the 
noblest  and  most  far-reaching  of  all  our  Sav- 
iour's utterances. 

21-23.  Jesus  had  now  given  forth  one  elab- 
orate parable  and  expounded  it,  and  he  had 
given  his  friends  to  understand  that  such 
teaching  was  thenceforth  to  be  frequent  with 
him.  Already,  before  the  exposition,  he  had 
told  his  disciples  that  it  was  given  to  them  to 
know  the  revealed  truth  of  which  a  parable 
was  the  picture,  while  to  the  world  outside 
was  given  only  the  parable  itself,  to  be  under- 
stood or  not  according  to  tlie  hearer's  heart. 
Thus  parabolic  teaching  was  in  an  important 
sense  esoteric,  and  useful  only  to  the  initiated. 
But  such  counsel  to  the  initiated  must  not  be 
left  unguarded.  They  must  not  suppose  that 
they  were  entrusted  with  secrets  of  the  king- 
dom to  be  guarded  as  secrets :  that  would  de- 
feat his  very  purpose.  He  must  make  per- 
fectly plain  to  them  the  intent  for  which  he 
gave  them  a  clearer  knowledge  of  his  truth 
than  others  possessed.  Hence  this  passage,  to 
which  perhaps  something  of  their  subsequent 
fidelity  in  preaching  was  due ;  to  which,  also, 
we  may  owe  more  than  we  are  aware  of  the 
rec  trds  that  they  made  of  his  life  and  words. 
"  No  permanent  secrets  in  the  kingdom ;  all  truth 
for  all  men  " — this  is  the  thought  of  the  passage. 

Is  the  candle  (or  lamp)  brought  in  order  to 
be  put  under  a  bushel  (the  ordinary  house- 
liold  measure,  holding  about  a  peck,  found  in 
every  house),  or  under  a  bed  (the  table-couch)? 
Is  it  not  brought  that  it  may  be  set  on  the 
candlestick,  or,  rather,"  lampstand  "  ?  As  he 
himself  is  the  Light  of  the  world  (John  8 :  12 ;  12 :  46), 
so  liis  truth  is  light,  to  whomsoever  it  may  be  en- 
trusted. It  has  the  nature  and  powers  of  light, 
and  even  when  entrusted  to  an  inner  circle  it 
is  destined  to  the  uses  of  light.  In  their  hands 
it  is  a  lamp,  given,  not  to  be  hidden,  but  to  be 


placed  where  it  can  shine.  Though  they  receive 
truth  in  the  form  of  parables,  which  all  cannot 
now  receive,  still  they  must  not  think  it  was 
given  them  for  themselves  alone:  the  light  was 
meant  for  the  lampstand  (Matt.  5 :  15, 16). — Verse  22 
repeats  the  lesson.  In  the  best  text,  literally, 
"  for  there  is  notliing  secret,  but  in  order  that 
it  may  be  manifested ;  nor  did  anything  be- 
come hidden,  but  in  order  that  it  may  come 
to  light" — i.  e.  there  is  nothing  secret,  as  the 
meaning  of  these  parables  is  secret,  except  that 
it  may  cease  to  be  necessary  to  have  it  secret ; 
nor  has  anything  in  the  course  of  the  Lord's 
ministry  become  a  hidden  thing,  as  the  truth 
thus  expressed  is  hidden  from  the  many,  ex- 
cept in  order  that  it  may  in  due  time  reach  all 
men.  If  truth  seems  to  be  hidden  in  being 
entrusted  exclusively  to  a  favored  few,  it  is  not 
so :  that  method  was  chosen  as  the  best  way  for 
ultimately  spreading  it  abroad.  So,  perhaps  still 
more  strongly,  in  Matt.  10  :  27 :  "  What  I  tell 
yovt  in  darkness,  that  speak  ye  in  light;  and 
what  ye  hear  in  the  ear,  tliat  jireach  ye  on  the 
housetops."  Thus  the  communicating  of  truth 
to  a  few  is  guarded  from  misunderstanding.  A 
permanent  circle  of  initiated  pupils  is  declared 
not  to  be  what  Jesus  desires ;  indeed,  an  inner 
circle  is  forbidden  to  exist.  All  truth  is  for  all 
men,  and  whoever  has  truth  committed  to  him 
is  required  to  give  it  forth.  Erasmus  para- 
phrases, "Think  not  that  I  wish  that  which  I 
commit  to  you  to  be  concealed  for  ever.  A 
light  has  been  kindled  in  you  by  me,  that  by 
your  ministry  it  may  dispel  the  darkness  of 
the  whole  world."  "  I  am  the  light  of  the 
world,"  "  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world." 
(Compare  Phil.  2  :  15,  16.)  Thus  Jesus  affirms 
that  in  teaching  by  parables  he  speaks  to  a  few, 
because  that  is  the  best  way  to  reach  the  many. 
He  teaches  an  inner  circle  in  order  that  his  cir- 
cle of  learners  may  become  unlimited.  There 
are  other  examples  of  similar  use  of  temporary 
methods;  as  when  God  gave  his  people  one 
sacred  ])iace,  Jeru.salcm,  in  order  that  he  might 
bring  in  the  religion  that  was  proclaimed  in 
John  4  :  21-24,  in  which  no  place  is  conse- 
crated, because  all  places  are  sacred.  Here, 
again,  he  closes  a  solemn  saying  with  the  form- 
ula of  attention. 


Ch.  JV.] 


MARK. 


63 


24  And  he  s.iith  unto  them,  Take  heed  what"  ye 
hear:  With*  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  meas- 
ured to  you;  and  unto  you  that  hear  sliull  more  be 
given. 

2'  For  he  that  hath,  to  him  shall  he  given:  and  he 
that  hath  not,  froni«  him  shall  be  taken  even  that 
which  he  hath. 


24  man  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear.  And  he  said 
unto  them.  Take  heed  what  ye  hear:  with  what 
measure  ye  mete  it  shall  be   measured   unto   you: 

25  and  more  shall  be  given  unto  you.  For  he  "that 
hath,  to  him  shall  be  given  :  and  he  that  hatli  not, 
from  him  shall  be  taken  away  even  that  which  he 
hath. 


a  1  Pet.  2:2 b  Matt.  7:2 c  Luke  8  ;  18. 


24,  25.  Thus  far  the  duty  of  using  the  truth 
as  h'ght  is  used  has  been  grounded  in  the  nature 
of  truth  and  tlie  purpose  of  tlie  Teacher;  now  it 
is  grounded  in  the  law  of  human  h'fe  itself 
The  words,  And  he  saith  unto  them,  repeat- 
ed here,  proljably  inthcate,  not  a  new  begin- 
ning with  a  cliange  of  time  and  place,  but 
rather  the  narrator's  reniendirance  of  the  spe- 
cial emphasis  with  which  all  this  was  spoken, 
very  likely  after  a  solemn  pause. — Take  heed 
what  ye  hear.  Luke,  "  how  ye  hear."  Not, 
"  Be  careful  what  you  listen  to,"  as  if  he  would 
warn  against  dangerous  teachers,  but,  "Care- 
fully ccjusider  what  you  are  hearing;  observe 
how  important  it  is;  remember  how  neces- 
sary tliat  you  make  the  right  use  of  it."  It 
is  almost,  "  Take  heed  to  what  you  hear."  The 
reason  assigned  for  this  caution  is  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  universal  law,  what  one  does  will  re- 
turn to  him. — The  words  that  hear  are  to  be 
omitted,  and  the  omission  considera])ly  changes 
the  structure  of  the  sentence:  "With  what 
measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you, 
and  added  to  you." — This  saying.  With  what 
measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured 
to  you,  proverbial  in  form,  is  applied  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Mmt.  7:2)  to  the  retribu- 
tion that  must  come  upon  inicharitableness 
and  self-willed  judgment.  Here  our  Lord  gives 
it  a  quite  different  application  ;  it  is  a  law  of 
life,  and  may  be  applied  in  many  ways.  In 
this  case  its  lesson  is,  "  You  will  be  dealt  with, 
as  to  truth,  as  you  deal  with  others.  Hide  it, 
and  it  will  be  hidden  from  you  ;  impart  it,  and 
it  will  be  imparted  to  you."  How  many  sovlls, 
in  dealing  with  truth  as  God  has  given  it  to 
tliem,  have  found  it  even  so — that  concealment 
was  loss,  while  giving  wa.s  gain  !  If  the  apos- 
tles had  kept  their  truth  as  a  private  trust,  how 
their  souls  would  haveshrivelled! — Shall  more 
be  given  is  a  promise  of  a  return,  which  shall 
be  not  merely  as  the  gift,  but  greater.  So  Luke 
6:38.  (Compare  2  Cor.  0  :  8-14.)  — Verse  25 
contains  what  was  evidently  more  or  less  a 
jn-overbial  saying  with  our  Lord.  He  that 
hath,  to  him  shall  be  given,  etc.  (See  Matt. 
2d  :  2'J ;  Luke  19  :  2G.)  Here  it  fits  the  connec- 
tion far  otherwise  than  as  in  the  passages  re- 
ferred to — another  illustration  of  our  Lord's 
various  use  of  single  important  savings.  Here, 
5 


by  a  very  striking  turn  of  thought,  he  that 
hath  is  identified  with  him  who  imparts  his 
trust  of  truth  to  others,  the  free  giver,  the  true 
apostle,  messenger  of  grace  and  truth ;  while 
he  that  hath  not  is  identified  with  him  who 
keeps  his  trust  of  truth  to  himself,  content  to 
be  ever  a  di.sciple  without  becoming  an  apostle. 
The  giver  hath,  the  miser  hath  not.  How 
true  a  description  of  men,  and  how  true  an  in- 
teri>retation  of  the  law  of  life  ! — And  now  it  is 
declared  that  for  these  two  classes  there  shall  be 
retribution.  He  that  hath,  to  him  shall  be 
given.  So  Luke  G :  ;iS — a  passage  that  may  serve 
as  a  link  Ix'tween  this  and  Matt.  7:2:  "  Give,  and 
it  shall  be  given  unto  yoti."  (See  also  Luke  12  : 
48.) — And  he  that  hath  not,  from  him  shall 
be  taken  even  that  which  he  hath.  How 
is  tliis?  He  "hath  not,"  and  yet  he  "hath" 
something  that  he  can  lose.  Yes;  the  spirit- 
ual miser  possesses  much  in  his  own  esteem ; 
much  tnUh  has  been  entrusted  to  him  ;  but  if  he 
isnotagiver  of  truth,  and  so  a  possessor,  his  pos- 
session shall  become  no  possession  :  what  he  hath 
shall  be  worthless  to  him.  Such  instruction  may 
well  have  nuide  the  apostles  careful  what  use 
they  made  of  the  parables.  Partly  to  this,  per- 
haps, it  is  due  that  they  were  so  faithful  in  put- 
ting the  lamp  on  the  lampstand,  not  only  by 
preaching,  but  also  by  making  record  of  Lis 
words,  es]iecially  such  words  as  these. 

2G-29.  THEPARABLEOFTHEGROWTH 
OF  THE  SEED.— INLark's  record  has  no  parallel 
here,  he  alone  having  preserved  to  us  this  beau- 
tiful and  suggestive  parable.  It  seems  not  a  lit- 
tle strange  that  such' a  parable  should  find  only 
one  out  of  the  four  to  record  it ;  but  the  reason 
why  it  is  so  can  scarcely  be  even  conjectured. 

The  key  for  the  interpretation  of  the  j)arable 
must  be  souglit  in  the  position  which  it  occu- 
pies. It  stands,  in  Mark,  immediately  after  the 
parable  of  the  Sower — i.  e.  nothing  has  inter- 
vened e.xcept  the  intcrjjretation  and  the  remarks 
on  the  true  use  of  parables.  The  i)arable  of 
the  Mustard-Seed  immediately  follows  it;  but 
before  the  parable  of  the  Mustard-Seed  comes, 
in  Matthew,  that  of  the  Good  Seed  and  the  Tares. 
This  parable  is  thus  a.fsociated  closely  with  the 
two  in  which  the  work  of  the  Saviour  in  his  king- 
dom is  com{)ared  to  a  .sower's  work,  but  its  affin- 
ities are  closer  with  the  former,  with  which  Mark 


64 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IV. 


26  %  And  he  said,  So"  is  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  if  a 
man  should  cast  seed  into  the  ground; 

27  And  slioiild  sleep,  and  rise  night  and  day,  and  the 
seed  should  spring  and  grow  up,  he  kiioweth  not  how. 

28  For  theeartli  liringeth  forth  fruit  of  herself  ;*  firsf^ 
the  blade,  then  the  ear;  after  that,  the  full  corn  in  the 
ear. 

2U  But  when  the  fruit  is  brought  forth,  immediately 
he*'  putteth  in  the  sickle,  because  the  harvest  is  come. 


26  And  he  said,  So  is  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  if  a  man 

27  should  cast  seed  ujjon  the  earth ;  and  should  sleep 
and  rise  night  and  day,  and  the  seed  sliould  spring 

28  up  and  grow,  he  knoweth  not  how.  The  earth  ibear- 
eth  fruit  of  herself;  rirst  the  blade,  then  the  ear, 

29  then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear.  But  when  the  fruit 
2is  ripe,  straightway  he  ^putteth  forth  the  sickle, 
because  the  harvest  is  come. 


I  Matt.  13  :  24 b  Gen.  1  :  II,  V2 c  Eccles.  3  :  1,  U 


Job  5:26....d  Rev.  14:  15.- 
sendeth  forth 


-1  Or,  yieldeth 2  Or,  allowetk 3  Or, 


associates  it.  In  that  parable  (verses  3-8)  the 
seed,  wliioli  is  tlie  word,  is  sown,  and  its  various 
destinies  are  pictured  as  they  occur  in  the  life 
and  experience  of  individual  hearers.  In  this, 
nothing  is  said  of  individual  conduct  or  destiny, 
but  the  method  of  advance  from  sowing  to  har- 
vest in  the  field  as  a  whole  is  set  forth.  The 
sower  is  the  same  sower  as  in  tlie  fii-st  parable ; 
tlie  seed  is  the  same  seed,  thougli  more  broadly 
regarded,  perhaps,  as  including  all  the  powers 
and  influences  of  the  kingdom.  The  field  is 
the  world.  Some  have  preferred  to  take  the 
parable  as  the  illustration  of  the  work  of  the 
gospel  in  the  individual  life,  the  liistory  of  per- 
sonal Christian  growth ;  but  the  connection 
with  the  parable  of  the  Sower  is  decidedly 
against  this  interpretation.  It  is  far  more  nat- 
ural that  the  two  sowers  and  the  two  fields 
should  be  the  same  in  the  two  parables;  and 
after  the  first  picture,  so  full  of  warning  and  so 
suggestive  of  possibilities  of  failure,  there  surely 
was  place  for  another,  in  which  the  destiny  of 
the  good  seed  should  be  foretold  on  a  wider 
scale  and  \vith  reference  to  the  metliods  of  the 
world-wide  work. 

26.  As  if  a  man  should  cast  seed  into 
the  ground.  Literally,  "  the  seed,"  by  which 
must  be  meant  either  "  his  seed," — the  seed 
that  he  is  sowing;  or,  "the  seed  already  in 
mind  " — the  seed  that  has  been  mentioned  in 
the  foregoing  parable.  The  latter  sense  seems 
to  be  decidedly  preferable  ;  the  seed  is  still  the 
Word,  and  the  present  parable  is  an  exposi- 
tion of  the  parable  of  the  Sower.  When 
the  husbandman  has  cast  the  seed  into  the 
ground  he  sleeps  and  rises,  night  and  day — 
sleeps  by  night  and  rises  when  day  comes,  ac- 
cording to  his  wont — and  while  he  is  doing 
nothing  to  make  it  germinate,  the  seed  springs 
up  and  grows,  he  knows  not  how. — For  the 
earth  bringeth  forth  fruit  of  herself.  The 
for  should  be  omitted,  and  the  emphasis,  a.s  in 
the  original,  be  marked  by  commencing  with 
of  herself. — And  the  grades  of  growth  are 
marked;  not  in  a  day  do  the  powers  and  in- 
fluences of  the  creation  mature  the  grain. 
First  the  blade,  undistinguishable  from 
grass,  yet  not  grass ;  then  the  ear,  ready  for 
the  grain  to  form,  and  yet  not  filled ;  after  that 


the  full  corn  in  the  ear,  the  ripened  grain, 
ready  for  the  garner. — But  when  the  fruit 
is  brought  forth — or  permits,  for  such  is  the 
best  translation  of  paradoi — immediately  he 
putteth  in  (or  sends  forth)  the  sickle,  be- 
cause the  harvest  has  come.  The  grain  is 
harvested  as  soon  as  it  is  ready. 

In  the  interpretation  we  must  not  suppose  it 
our  duty  to  find  in  this  parable  the  whole  truth 
concerning  tlie  kingdom  of  Christ.  No  one 
parable  gives  us  that ;  and  this  shows  us  one 
aspect,  and  only  one,  of  tlie  work  of  Christ 
among  men.  It  shows  us  the  agency  of  hia 
word  in  its  relation  to  the  general  operation 
of  God  in  the  world.  Nor  must  we  sujtpose 
that  every  part  of  the  comparison  is  signif- 
icant and  closely  to  be  pressed  in  the  interpre- 
tation. If  that  principle  were  adopted,  there 
could  never  be  a  i)arable.  Parables  proceed  upon 
the  principle  of  resemblance,  not  of  identity. 
In  the  present  case  there  are  some  parts  of  the 
parable  that  are  present  only  as  parts  of  the 
imagery  by  which  the  central  idea  is  set  forth. 

The  kingdom  of  Christ  is  set  forth  in  its  re- 
lation, not  to  the  forces  of  nature  or  the  natural 
receptivity  of  man,  but  to  the  general  operation 
of  God  in  the  world.  As  the  farmer  submits 
his  seed  to  the  operation  of  the  powers  of  na- 
ture, so  does  the  Messiah,  whether  sowing  in 
person  or  through  the  agency  of  his  followers, 
submit  his  truth  and  kingdom  to  that  general 
operation  of  God  in  human  history  wherein 
God  works  in  accordance  with  the  nature  that 
he  has  given  to  man.  Not  to  nature  or  to  man, 
but  to  (he  world  as  rided  by  God,  he  commits 
his  gospel.  It  takes  its  place  among  other 
powers  in  the  world,  and  among  them  it  does 
its  work.  He  knoweth  not  how  does  not 
mean  that  the  Messiah  knows  not  how  the  true 
seed  grows ;  it  is  a  part  of  the  picture  of  spon- 
taneous growth  in  nature. — The  earth  bring- 
eth  forth  fruit  of  herself  does  not  mean  that 
the  true  seed  bears  its  fruit  without  divine  in- 
fluences; for  even  in  the  parable,  as  Bengel  re- 
marks, the  culture  of  the  soil  is  not  excluded, 
neither  are  the  influences  of  sun  and  rain.  But 
the  gospel  is  cast  into  the  world  as  an  element 
in  human  life,  and  it  does  its  work,  not  by 
startling  divine  interpositions,  but  as  grain  ma- 


Ch.  IV.] 


MARK. 


65 


30  H  And  he  said,  Whereunto  shall  we  liken  the 
kingdom  of  (jod?  or  with  what  comparison  shall  we 
compare  it? 

31  yc  (.V  like  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  which,  when  it 
is  sown  in  the  earth,  is  less  than  all  the  seeds  that  be 
in  the  earth : 

3i  Hut  when  it  is  sown,  it  groweth  up,  and  becometh 
greater' than  all  herbs, and  shooteth  out  great  branches; 
so  that  the  fowls  of  the  air  may  lodge  under  the  shadow 
of  it. 


30  And  he  said,  How  shall  we  liken  the  kingdom  of 

31  God?  or  in  what  parable  shall  we  set  it  fortli?  'It  is 
like  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  which,  when  it  is  sown 
upon  the  earth,  though  it  be  less  than  all  the  seeds 

32  that  are  upon  the  earth,  yet  when  it  is  sown,  grow- 
eth  up,  and  becometh  greaterthan  all  the  herbs,and 
putteth  out  great  branches;  so  that  the  birds  of  the 
lieaven  can  lodge  under  the  shadow  thereof. 


a  Matt.  13  :  31,  32  ;  Luke  13  :  18,  19 !>  Prov.  4  :  18;  Isa.  II  :  9;  Dan.  2  :  44  ;  Mai.  I  :  II.' 


-I  Gr.  A>  imto. 


tares  and  seeds  grow  under  the  fostering  influ- 
ences of  Divine  Providence.  This  is  the  teach- 
ing of  tlio  parable,  and  the  best  coininentary  on 
it  is  found  in  tlie  liistoiy  of  Cliristian  truth 
among  men.  In  exactly  tliis  way — silently,  as 
seeds  grow — has  God's  kingdom  come  thus  far, 
and  is  it  coming  still.  This  is  a  parable  of 
hope,  for  in  the  world  in  which  Christ  places 
his  seed  there  are  powers  at  work  that  render 
the  harvest  certain.  If  this  parable  is  parallel 
to  that  of  the  Sower,  the  harvest  is  not  jtrimar- 
ily  [but  .see  Matt.  13  :  3!).— A.  H.]  the  gathering 
of  saints  to  glory,  but  tlie  gathering  of  men  to 
Uhrist.  This,  the  great  Husbandman,  who  reaps 
as  well  as  sows,  will  accomplish  in  due  time. 
30-32.  THE  PARABLE  OF  THE  MUS- 
TARD-SEED. Parallrls,  Matt.  13:31,  32;  Luke 
1')  :  IS.  1!). — Whereunto  (or  how)  shall  we 
liken  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  or  with  what 
comparison  (or  parable)  shall  we  com- 
pare it?  In  using  the  plural,  we,  our  Lord 
seems  to  conceive  of  his  disciples  as  deliber- 
ating with  him  in  the  choice  of  a  comparison; 
not  that  he  was  in  doubt  lus  to  how  the  gospel 
could  be  illustrated  —  comparisons  thronged 
upon  h!m— but  because  he  would  have  them 
also  on  the  watch  for  comparisons.  The  world 
was  full  of  them,  and  they,  the  teachers  of 
men  in  higher  things,  nuist  learn,  as  well  as 
their  Master,  to  find  them.  Yet  possibly  he  may 
sometimes,  like  any  one  of  them,  have  had  to 
feel  after  an  illustration  in  nature  that  was 
suited  to  his  thought. — A  grain  of  mustard- 
seed.  There  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  for 
looking  elsewhere  than  to  the  ordinary  mustard 
of  the  E;ist.  Thomson  (  The  Dtnd  and  the  Book, 
2.  100)  has  .seen  it  as  high  as  a  horse  and  rider. 
[See  also  the  beautiful  incident  in  Dr.  Hackett's 
Ilhi!tlmtio)i.i  of  Scripture,  p.  124. — A.  H.]  This  is 
the  Sinnpis  niffrn;  but  some  have  thought  that 
the  S(dvndnrn  Pcrsica  was  more  probably  the 
herb  that  Jesus  had  in  mind.  The  former, 
liowever,  meets  all  the  real  requirements  of 
the  case,  and  was  tlie  more  familiar  plant  to  his 
hearers.  "  It  (the  Sinnpix  i)!(fra)  is  a  small  grain 
producing  a  large  result;  the  least  of  the  hus- 
bandman's  seeds,  becoming  the  greatest  of  the 
husbandman's  herbs.     This  is  the  point  of  the 


parable,  and  gives  the  only  sense  in  which  the 
!  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  a  grain  of  mustard- 

seed"  {The  Bible  Educator,  1.  121). — Less  than 
I  and  greater  than  are  not  to  be  pressed  to  the 
I  point  of  minute  precision.  There  may  be  smaller 
I  seeds  in  existence  without  giving  us  reason  to 
I  stumble  at  our  Saviour's  words.  The  mustard- 
I  seed  was  commonly  spoken  of  as  the  smallest 
;  of  seeds,  and  that  is  enough.  —  Becometh 
j  greater  than  all  the  herbs.  Matthew,  "is 
I  greater  than  the  herlis,  and  becometh  a  tree" — 
I  i.  e.,  of  course,  a  tree  in  appearance,  not  botan- 

ically.    The  great  branches  are  such  as  one 


MUSTAHD-PLANT. 

would  think  impossible  upon  an  herb  that 
sprang  from  so  small  a  seeil. — The  comparison 
calls  for  very  little  explanation,  the  lesson — 
small  beginuings  and  great  results — being  very 
plain.  Such  is  the  kingdom,  begun  obscurely, 
with  no  human  prosi)ect  of  greatness,  no  seem- 
ing possibility  of  success.  It  began  among  the 
Jews,  a  di.sap]iointed  people  chafing  under  for- 
eign masters  ;  it  was  the  smallest  of  sects  among 
them  ;  it  contradicted  their  ideas,  and  was  re- 
jected by  them  ;  it  seemed  to  be  powerless  at 
home,  and  without  opportunities  abroad ;  and 
its  Founder  died  on  the  cross.  Even  after  the 
day  of  Pentecost  it  seemed  but  a.  feeble  sect 


86 


MAKK. 


[Ch.  IV. 


33  And  with  many  such  parables  spake  he  the  word 
unto  them,"  as  they  were  able  to  hear  (7. 

34  But  without  a  parable  spake  he  not  unto  them: 
and  when  they  were  alone,  he  exi)ounded  all  things 
to  his  disciples. 

35  And  the  same  day,  when  the  even  was  come,  he 
saith  unto  them,  Let  us  pass  over  unto  the  other  side. 


33  And  with  many  such  parables  spake  he  the  word 

34  unto  them,  as  they  were  able  to  hear  it:  and  with- 
out a  parable  spake  he  not  unto  them  :  but  ))rivately 
to  his  own  disciples  he  expounded  all  things. 

35  And  on  that  day,  when  even  was  come,  he  saith 


Yet  compare  the  strong  language  of  Paul  in 
Rom.  16  :  26 ;  Col.  1  :  23  as  to  the  wide  exten- 
sion of  the  gospel  within  the  apostolic  times. 
Consider  also  the  power  of  the  name  and  prin- 
ciples of  Jesus  in  the  world  to-day,  and  the 
ever-widening  circle  of  Christian  influence.  The 
kingdom  has  grown  out  of  all  resemblance  to 
its  humble  beginning.  Such  is  the  kingdom ; 
and  the  same  rule  is  to  be  observed  in  its  agen- 
cies. They  are  often  obscure  and  yet  mighty. 
A  single  act  of  a  quiet  person  often  seems  pos- 
sessed of  a  germinant  power  of  usefulness  that 
brings  most  unexpected  fruit  to  the  glory  of  God. 
Christian  history  is  full  of  illustrations.  Notice 
that  this  comparison  does  not  set  forth  the  great- 
ness of  the  kingdom  absolutely,  as  destined  to 
fill  the  earth,  ))ut  only  relatively,  in  contrast 
with  the  insignificance  of  its  apparent  promise. 
33,  34.  CONCLUSION  OF  THIS  RECORD 
OP  PARABOLIC  TEACHING.  PnmUd,  Matt. 
13:34,  35.  —  With  many  such  parables. 
Mark  thus  recognizes  a  larger  teaching  l)y  par- 
ables on  that  occasion,  which  he  does  not  re- 
port. Matthew  places  before  this  point  the 
parables  of  the  Tares  and  the  Leaven,  and 
after  it,  in  the  same  connection,  the  exposition 
of  the  parable  of  the  Tares,  and  the  parables 
of  the  Hidden  Treasure,  the  Costly  Pearl,  and 
the  Net  cast  into  the  Sea.  Of  this  group,  Luke 
records  only  the  Sower,  the  Mustard-Seed,  and 
the  Leaven  ;  Mark,  only  the  Sower,  the  Growth 
of  the  Seed,  and  the  Mustard-Seed.  Mark, 
doubtless,  knew  that  others  were  spoken,  but 
why  he  omitted  (hem  we  cannot  affirm. — As 
they  were  ahle  to  hear  it — /.  e.  not  in 
amoiuit  proj^ortioned  to  their  ability  to  receive 
and  understand  it — not  as  in  John  16  :  12 — but 
in  parables,  that  being  the  only  form  in 
which  the  people  were  spiritually  able  to 
hear  what  he  had  to  say  to  them.  This  was 
tlie  mode  which  their  limited  ability  to  hear  and 
understand  forced  upon  him. — And  without 
a  parable  spake  he  not  unto  them.  His 
public  teaching  on  this  occasion  was  altogether 
by  parables.  Not  even  the  expositions  were 
given  in  the  audience  of  the  people.  Not  im- 
probably, the  same  practice  extended  to  other 
occasions  at  this  period  of  his  ministry  ;  so  that 
we  have  clear  indication  of  a  large  nundier  of 
unrecorded  parables.    Undoubtedly,  there  nuist 


have  been  many  such,  his  facility  in  illustrating 
from  nature  and  life  being  enough  to  render  it 
certain  that  he  was  frequently  "  using  simil- 
itudes." For  the  mtiltittide  they  were  intend- 
ed to  awaken  curiosity  and  thoughtfulness ;  for 
''his  own  disciples,"  to  whom  he  expounded 
them  in  private,  they  were  of  the  very  sub- 
stance of  his  message — picttires  of  fundamental 
truths  of  his  kingdom.  Compare  1  John  2  :  21 : 
"  I  have  not  written  unto  you  because  ye  know 
not  the  truth,  but  because  ye  know  it."  Notice 
that  liis  explanations  were  not  for  those  who  were 
mostdullofapprehension ;  the  explanations  were 
reserved  for  those  who  could  understand.  Here, 
again,  "to  him  that  hath  shall  be  given."  The 
disciples  thought  they  understood  this  course 
of  parables  (Matt.  i3:ai),  and,  in  a  sense,  they  did 
understand  them;  yet  what  a  "springing  and 
germinant"  meaning  had  these  words  of  Jesus  ! 
Not  fully  interpreted  even  yet.  The  understand- 
ing of  liis  truth  is  progressive ;  men  in  every  age 
understand  it,  yet  do  not  tmderstand  it ;  it  is 
revealed,  yet  it  is  ever  coming  to  the  mind  and 
heart  of  man  ;  it  is  known,  yet  it  is  so  great  as 
almost  to  seem  unknown. — It  is  ISIark  that  adds, 
in  his  own  vein,  as  they  were  able  to  hear 
it,  and  speaks  of  the  private  exposition  to  his 
own  disciples.  Matthew,  not  less  characteristi- 
cally, has  here  a  quotation  from  P.salm  78  :  2  as 
to  the  utterance  of  parables  and  dark  sayings. 
Matthew  is  the  evangelist  who  constantly  con- 
nects the  new  covenant  with  the  old ;  ]\Iark  is 
the  one  who  constantly  views  it  in  itself  and 
pictures  the  Christ  as  a  peculiar  personage, 
working  alone  a  mighty  work  among  men. 

35-41.  JESUS  STILLS  A  TEMPEST  ON 
THE  LAKE.  Parallels,  Matt.  8  :  23-27  ;  Luke 
8  :  22-25. 

35,  3G.  The  same  day,  when  the  even 
was  come—/,  e.  the  day  of  the  parables.  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  differ  from  Mark  and  from 
each  other  as  to  tlie  time  and  coiniection  of  this 
event,  but  their  notes  of  time  are  not  so  defniite 
as  Clark's,  and  his  order  bears  the  stronger  marks 
of  intentional  arrangement ;  hence,  as  usual,  the 
only  course  is  to  follow  him. — Let  us  pass 
over  unto  the  other  side.  The  eastern  side 
of  tlie  lake,  the  starting-point  being  somewhere 
near  Capernavnn. — "  Leaving  the  nuiltitude  "  is 
a  better  sense  for  aphentes  ton  ochloii  here  than 


Ch.  IV.] 


MARK. 


67 


36  And  when  they  had  sent  away  the  multitude,  they  |  36  unto  them,  Let  us  go  over  unto  the  other  side.    And 
took  him  oven  as  he  was  in  the  ship:  and  there  were  leaving  the  multitude,  they  take   liiui  with   them, 

also  with  him  other  little  ships.  j      even  as  he  was,  in  the  hoat.    And  other  boats  were 


having   sent  the    multitude   away.     The 

jmrposc  \va.s  to  find  rest.  How  great  \va.s  tlie 
need  of  it,  a  backward  glance  will  show.  Tlie 
first  words  of  Matt.  13  :  1  distinctly  connect  the 
ministry  of  parables  by  tlie  lakeside  with  the 
coming  of  his  mother  and  brethren,  and  with 
the  bitter  charge  of  tiie  scribes  from  Jerusalem, 
as  all  occurring  on  the  same  day.  Thus,  to  find 
the  events  of  the  morning,  we  are  carried  back 
to  Mark  3  :  20  or  ^[att.  12  :  22.  Within  the  day 
now  ending  he  had  been  so  thronged  at  home 
as  to  have  no  time  to  eat ;  he  had  healed  a  de- 
moniac ;  he  had  been  accused  of  being  in  league 


been  illustrated  before  him.  Tlie  only  doubt 
in  this  enumeration  relates  to  the  explanation 
of  the  parables,  whicli  may  not  yet  have  l)een 
reached;  they  may  have  brought  liiin  their 
question  and  received  their  answer  or  e.\i)la- 
nation  now,  as  they  were  going  to  the  other 
side.  Such  a  day's  work  a.s  this  could  not  fail 
to  bring  a  terrible  strain  upon  him  in  mind  and 
heart.  We  must  not  forget  how  intensely  living 
liis  own  truth  was  to  him,  or  how  deeply  lie 
cared  for  the  destinies  of  his  hearers.  And  this 
had  been  a  day  of  rejection  for  his  truth  and 
of  hardening  for  some,  at  least,  of  those  who 


SKA   <il'  (.  \i.ii,.;i. 


with  the  evil  one,  and  so  of  being  the  worst  of 
demoniacs  and  the  most  wicked  of  men ;  he 
had  thus  met  w'ith  the  most  violent  rejection 
of  his  mission  and  his  goodness;  he  had  been 
sought  by  his  own  kindred  as  a  man  beside 
himself,  and  had  been  obliged  to  repel  them, 
even  though  his  mother  was  among  theni ;  he 
had  changed  the  method  of  his  teaching,  had 
taken  up  the  use  of  parables,  and  had  delivered 
many  (rcrse.Tt)  to  a  thmnging  multitude ;  he  had 
afterward  explained  these  to  his  disciples,  who 
were  eager  and  yet  not  swift  to  umlerstand  him  ; 
and  all  the  day  the  jiarable  of  the  Sower,  with 
its  three  fruitless  classes  to  one  fruitful,  had 


heard  him.  Whether  he  knew  then  the  ex- 
perience of  his  servants  in  dejiression  and  des- 
pondency— the  "  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our 
report?" — we  cannot  say;  but  that  day  wa-S 
enough  to  give  him  full  sympathy  with  liis 
servants  in  the  experience  of  mental  weari- 
ness. Far  deeper  and  more  consoling  is  this 
weariness  than  that  of  John  4  :  fi,  when  he  was 
merely  "  wearied  with  his  journey ;"  now  lie 
was  wearied  with  his  work. — They  took  him, 
even  as  he  was  in  the  ship  (or  boat) — pe- 
culiar to  Mark — i.  r..  probably,  l)ecanse  he  was 
utterly  weary  and  would  have  them  spend  no 
time  in  preparation.     He  was  "in  the  boat,"  as 


68 


MAKK. 


[Ch.  IV. 


37  And"  there  arose  a  great  storm  of  wind,  and  the 
waves  beat  into  the  ship,  so  that  it  was  now  full. 

38  And  he  was  in  the  hinder  part  of  the  ship,  asleep 
on  a  pillow:  and  they  awake  him,  and  say  unto  him, 
Master,'  carest  thou  not  that  we  jierish  ?    ' 


37  with  him.  And  there  ariseth  a  great  storm  of  wind, 
and  the  waves  beat  into  tlie  boat,  insomuch  that  the 

38  boat  was  now  tilling.  And  he  himself  was  in  the 
stern,  asleep  on  the  cushion :  and  they  awake  him, 
and  say  unto  him,  'Master,  carest  thou  not  that  we 


a  Matt.  8  :  24;  Luke  8  :  23 b  Ps.  10  :  I ;  Isa.  40  :  27  ;  Lam.  3  : 


-1  Or,  Teac?ter 


at  verse  1. — That  there  were  also  Avith  him 

other  little  ships  is  peculiar  to  ]\Iark — the 
vivid  renienibrance  of  an  eye-witnes.s  how  they 
set  out  upon  the  lake  amid  a  little  fleet  of  boats, 
filled,  no  doubt,  with  friends. 


37,  38.  A  great  storm  of  wind.    For  a 

description  of  such  a  sharp,  suddes-i  tempest 
by  niaht  on  that  lake  see  Thomson,  The  Land 
and  til/:  Book,  2.  32,  33.  Such  storms  are  frequent 
on  all  inland  seas,  but  especially  there.  The 
level  of  the  lake  is  six  hundred  feet  below  that 
of  the  ocean,  yet  the  altitudes  of  tlie  surroiniding 
hills  are  very  considerable.  Hence  the  streams 
that  cut  their  way  down  to  the  lake  ^ain  ex- 
traordinary velocity,  especially  when  the  snows 
are  melting  and  wear  for  themselves  dee]i  water- 
courses, which  serve  as  gigantic  funnels,  through 
which  the  winds  rush  down  upon  the  lake  and 
make  such  sudden  and  violent  disturbances  as 
occur  scarcely  anywhere  else. — So  that  it — the 
boat — was  now  filling,  not  full.    Matthew  says 


"covered  with  the  waves,"  and  Luke  adds  that 
"they  were  in  danger;"  but  the  mo.st  graphic 
of  all  the  touches  is  Mark's  when  literally  trans- 
lated, "The  waves  beat  into  the  boat,  so  that 
it  was  now  filling." — The  pillow,  or  rather 
"cushion,"  was  a  part  of  the  fiu-niture  of  the 
boat ;  not  unlikely,  from  its  being  at  the  stern 
of  the  boat,  it  was  tlie  steersman's  cushion. 
Mark  alone  mentions  it,  and  tells  the  part  of 
the  boat  in  which  Jesus  lay  asleep — asleep  so 
profoundly  in  his  utter  exhaustion  as  to  know 
nothing  of  the  tempest.  How  perfectly  natural 
a  sequence  to  such  a  day  as  has  been  described ! 
Yet  nothing  has  been  directly  said  in  the  nar- 
rative of  his  weariness ;  we  see  it  rather  than 
read  of  it.  Not  only  the  weariness  do  we  see, 
but  the  calmness,  the  trust,  as  of  a  little  child  ; 
the  tempest  does  not  awaken  him. — But  the 
secret  of  his  calmness  has  not  yet  taken  pos- 
session of  his  friends.  The  petulant  carest 
thou  not  that  we  perish?  is  found  in  Mark 
alone;  it  is  a  foolish  word  of  distrust,  yet 
matched — how  often  ! — by  the  complaints  of 
later  disciples  when  they  are  tempted  to  fancy 
that  "the  Lord  hath  forsaken  the  earth."  It 
indicates,  too,  a  degree,  or  rather  a  kind,  of 
familiarity  that  ill  accords  with  true  rever- 
ence. Not  yet  did  they  fully  know  witli  whom 
they  had  to  do.  But  did  they  really  suppose 
that  the  boat  would  perish,  with  all  on  board, 
when  the  Clirist  of  God  was  there?  They  were 
not  yet  fully  convinced  that  he  was  the  Christ,  or 
such  a  fear  could  never  have  overcome  them. 
[It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  Mark  alone,  whose 
narrative  is  believed  to  have  been  derived  from 
Peter,  gives  the  appeal  to  Jesus  the  form  of  a 
"petulant"  or  reproachful  question.  Compare 
Matthew  (8:26):  "Save,  Lord,  we  perish;"  and 
Luke  (8 :  24) :  "  Master,  Master,  we  perish."  And 
what  is  more  likely  than  that  Peter  alone  used 
the  words  recorded  by  Mark?  Who  else  of  the 
disciples  was  so  likely  to  give  such  a  turn  to  his 
appeal  for  help?  No  one  of  the  twelve  save 
Peter  appears  to  have  reproved  the  Lord  on  any 
other  occasion.  But  he,  in  his  honest  arro- 
gance and  impetuosity,  did  this  more  than  once. 
And  if  he  alone  used  the  words  preserved  by 
Mark,  what  more  natural  than  that  he  alone 
was  wont  to  repeat  them?  For  they  were 
words  which  he  might  well  remember,  and 
which,  in  the  excitement  of  that  moment  on 


Ch.  IV.] 


MARK. 


69 


39  And  he  arose,  and  rebuked  the  wind,  and  said 
unto  the  sea,  Peace,  be  still.  And"  the  wind  ceased, 
and  there  was  a  great  calm. 

-ID  And  he  said  unto  them.  Why  are  ye  so  fearful?' 
how  is  it  that  ye  have  no  faith. 

41  And  they  feared'  exceedingly,  and  said  one  to 
aiHithcr,  What  manner  of  man  is  this,  that  even  the 
wind  and  the  sea**  obey  him? 


39  perish?  And  he  awoke,  and  rebuked  the  wind,  and 
said  unto  the  sea.  Peace,  be  still.    And  the  wind 

40  ceased,  and  there  was  a  great  calm.  And  he  said 
unto  them.  Why  are  ye  fearful?   have  ye  not  yet 

41  faith?  And  they  feared  exceedingly,  and  said  one 
to  another,  Who  then  is  this,  that  even  the  wind 
and  the  sea  obey  him? 


aP3.  89:9;  Lam.  3:  31,32.... &  Ps.  46,  1,  2;  Isa.  «3  :  t e  John  I  :  10, 16 d  Johu  38 :  11. 


the  lake,  in  the  storm,  were  probably  observed 
by  no  one  of  his  associates.  This  little  question, 
therefore,  "  Curest  thou  not  that  we  perish?" 
confirms  the  early  tradition  that  Mark's  Gospel 
is  at  the  same  time  Peter's. — A.  H.] 

39-41.  It  is  not  he  arose,  but  "'he  awoke," 
or,  still  stronger,  "he  was  arcjiised." — He  re- 
buked the  wind.  Matthew,  "the  winds;" 
Luke,  "  the  wind  and  the  raging  of  the  water." 
— But  the  word  of  address  was  to  the  sea;  Mark 
alone  gives  it.  Peace,  be  still,  is  not  a  lit- 
eral rendering,  l)ut  is  an  effective  one.  The  first 
word  is  "  Be  silent ;"  the  second,  literally,  "  Be 
muzzled,"  or,  in  its  metaphorical  sense,  "  Be  re- 
duced to  silence."  The  second  is  in  the  imper- 
ative mode  of  the  perfect  tense — a  rare  use  in 
the  New  Testament — thus  e.xplaincd :  "  The  per- 
fect imperative  is  used  when  an  action  complete 
in  itself  is  represented  as  to  continue  in  its 
effects ;  as  in  Mark  4  :  39,  in  Christ's  address  to 
the  troubled  sea:  pephimoso,  'be  (and  remain) 
stiir"  {Thayer s  Winer,  p.  315).  Note  the  sim- 
plicity of  this  narrative :  no  attempt  to  make 
the  style  correspond  to  the  sublimity  of  the 
act. — Just  so  of  the  effect :  how  could  it  be 
more  simply  described?  The  wind  ceased. 
Literally,  "grew  weary" — an  expressive  word 
for  the  sudden  lull  and  resting  of  the  raging 
wind.  It  was  not  a  gradual  dying  away  of  the 
wind,  followed  by  a  long  swell  of  the  waters, 
but  a  quick  cessation,  followed  almost  imme- 
diately by  a  great  calm.  "  Here  was  a  greater 
tlian  Jonah  "  (Meyer).  All  theorizing  as  to  the 
inner  nature  of  the  act  is  of  course  in  vain  ;  but 
no  one  who  has  seen  in  him  the  Lord  of  nature, 
and  luis  known  his  other  works  of  power,  need 
feel  any  difficulty  in  the  narrative.  Attempts 
have,  of  course,  been  made  to  explain  away  the 
miracle,  some  calling  it  a  coincidence  and  some 
finding  in  the  story  only  a  mythical  representa- 
tion of  the  power  of  Chri.st  to  still  the  teiupests 
of  the  soul.  But  the  testimony  of  Meyer  is  of 
value  here :  "  It  is  to  be  held  historically  as  a 
miracle,  an  event  that  sprang  from  the  divine 
power  that  dwelt  in  Je.sus,  on  account  of  which 
it  is  no  more  difHcult  to  a.scribe  to  him  a  mighty 
work  upon  the  elements  than  ati  influence  upon 
the  bodily  organism."  Jesus  never  raised  storms, 
but  he  quelled  them.    Compare  the  fancy  in 


Shakespeare's  Tempest — a  fancy  etliereal,  but  not 
spiritual— of  a  magician  who  has  power  upon 
the  elements.  He  does  not  act  without  a  pur- 
pose, but  he  serves  his  purpose  first  by  raising 
storms,  and  then  by  quelling  them.  So  a  won- 
der-worker would  be  likely  to  do,  without  divine 
self-control.  The  apostles  could  be  trusted  with 
miraculous  power  only  because  the  mind  was 
in  them  (though  imperfectly)  that  was  also  in 
Christ  Jesus.  It  is  a  tribute  to  the  power  of  hLs 
grace  in  them  that  we  have  no  reason  to  think 
they  ever  abused  it. 

40,  41.  In  Matthew  (not  in  Luke)  the  ques- 
tion of  verse  40  precedes  the  rebuke  to  the 
winds  and  address  to  the  sea,  the  "  Why  are 
ye  so  fearful,  0  ye  of  little  faith?"  being  uttered 
while  the  storm  is  still  raging.  In  Mark  the 
remonstrance  follows  the  deliverance.  The  text 
is  somewhat  doubtful,  but  the  reading  of  the 
revisers  is  probably  right :  "  Why  are  ye  fear- 
ful? have  ye  not  yet  faith  ?" — faith  in  him,  in 
his  love  as  well  as  in  his  power,  which  they 
had  half  disowned  in  their  carest  thou  not 
that  we  perish?  but  which  their  experience 
of  him  ought  to  have  made  fre.'^h  and  unfail- 
ing; and  perhaps  also  faith  in  God's  paternal 
watchfulness  and  protection,  which  enabled 
him  to  sleep  amid  the  tempest,  while  they 
were  half  crazed  with  fear. — What  manner 
of  man  (or,  more  accurately,  "who,  then") 
is  this?  The  question  of  the  disciples  in  Mark 
and  Luke;  in  Matthew,  of  "  the  men"  who 
were  with  them,  in  their  own  boat  or  in  the 
other  boats.  Even  the  apostles  had  not  learned 
to  know  him  as  one  from  whom  such  cotitrol 
of  nature  could  be  expecte<i,  and  now  they  were 
awestruck  in  his  presence.  (Compare  Luke  5  :  8, 
9.)  We  may  picture  the  amazement  of  other  per- 
sons who  may  have  been  upon  the  lake  at  the 
sudden  ces.sation  of  the  wind,  for  which  they 
knew  no  reason,  and  of  the  astonishment  and 
incredulity  with  which  the  true  story  of  it  might 
be  received  ;  yet  not  then,  and  in  that  land,  with 
any  such  incredulity  as  now,  and  in  the  West. 
The  miracles,  like  other  means  that  God  uses, 
were  used  at  the  right  time  and  place.  It  is  thf 
highest  evidence  of  their  divine  source  that  they 
were  so  perfectly  adapted  to  the  age  in  which 
they  were  employed. 


70 


MARK. 


[Ch.  V. 


A 


ND"  they  came  over  unto  the  other  side  of  the  sea, 
into  the  country  of  the  Gadarenes. 


CHAPTER    V. 

1     And  they  came  to  the  other  side  of  the  sea,  into 


a  Matt.  8  :  28,  etc. ;  Luke  8  :  26,  etc. 


1-20.  JESUS  HEALS  A  DEMONIAC  ON 
THE    EASTERN   SHORE   OF   THE   LAKE. 

Parallels,  Matt.  8  :  28-34 ;  Luke  8  :  26-39. 

1.  This  narrative  immediately  follows  in  all 
three  records.  The  time  was  the  early  morning, 
when  they  came  to  land  from  the  nocturnal 
voyage  just  described.  As  to  the  place,  the 
manuscript  readings  of  the  name  of  the  coun- 
try are  full  of  variation  in  all  the  Gospels.   The 


that  either  of  them  did  so.  In  any  case,  neither 
of  them  can  have  been  the  "  city  "  mentioned 
in  verse  14,  for  this  was  close  to  the  shore. 
Hence  there  has  been  much  perplexity  about 
the  scene  of  this  miracle,  and  suggestions  liave 
not  been  wanting  that  the  names  were  not  real 
names,  but  had  only  some  symbolic  meaning 
to  correspond  to  a  mythical  story.  Origen  de- 
clares, however,  that  in  his  day  there  was  a 


TOMB    AT   GADARA. 


most  approved  readings  are  "Gadarenes"  in 
Matthew  and  "Gerasenes"  in  Mark;  while  in 
Luke  authorities  are  divided  between  "Ger- 
a.senes"  and  "  Gergesenes."  Gadara  was  a  city 
of  some  repute,  sixteen  Roman  miles  east  of 
Tiberias;  Gerasa  was  also  an  important  town, 
about  twenty  Roman  miles  away.  Both  were 
east  of  the  lake,  and  either  might  conceivably 
give  its  name  to  the  district  that  extended  to 
the  lake,  though  there  is  no  historical  evidence 


town  called  Gergesa  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the 
lake.  Thomson  ( The  Land  and  the  Book,  2. 
34-37)  seems  to  have  been  the  first  in  modern 
times  to  find  there  a  ruined  town  that  bears 
the  name  of  Kersa,  or  Gersa.  The  town  stood 
quite  near  the  water,  and  all  tlie  requirements 
of  the  story  seem  to  be  sufliciently  met  by  it. 
The  site  may  be  regarded  as  beyond  question, 
and  the  discovery  removes  all  difficulty  as  to 
the  scene  of  the  miracle,  except  that  it  does  not 


Ch.  v.] 


MARK. 


71 


2  And  when  he  was  come  out  of  the  ship,  imme- 
diately there  met  him  out  of  the  tombs  a  man  with 
an  unclean  spirit, 

3  Who  had  /(/.s  dwelling"  among  the  tombs;  and  no 
man  could  bind  him,  no,  not  with  chains: 

4  Because  that  he  had  been  often  bound  with  fetters 
and  chains,  and  the  chains  had  l)een  plucked  asunder 
by  him,  and  the  fetters  broken  in  pieces:  neither  could 
any  mun  tame  him. 

n  And  always,  night  and  day,  he  was  in  the  moun- 
tains, and  in  the  tombs,  crying,  and  cutting  himself 
with  stones. 

(i  But  when  he  saw  Jesus  afar  off,  he  ran  and  wor- 
shipped' him, 


2  the  country  of  the  Gerasenes.  And  when  he  was 
come  out  of  the  boat,  straightway  there  met  him 

3 out  of  the  tombs  a  man  with  an  unclean  spirit,  who 
had  his  dwelling  in  the  tombs:  and  no  man  could 

4  any  more  bind  nim,  no,  not  with  a  chain  ;  because 
that  he  had  been  often  bound  with  fetters  and 
chains,  and  the  chains  had  been  rent  asunder  by 
him,  and  the  fetters  broken  in  pieces:  and  no  man 

Shad  strength  to  tame  him.  And  always,  night  and 
day,  in  the  tombs  and  in  the  mountains,  he  was  cry- 

6  ing  out,  and  cutting  himself  with  stones.  And  when 
he  saw  Jesus  from  afar,  he  ran  and  worshipped  him ; 


alsa.  65  : 1 b  P.s.  72  :! 


exjjlain  the  confusion  of  names  in  the  ancient 
records.  As  it  is  scarcely  possiljle  to  be  sure 
wliat  wtus  the  original  reading  in  any  one  evan- 
gelist, perhaps  the  divergences  can  never  be 
perfectly  accounted  for ;  but  the  loss  of  the  site 
of  Gergesa  would  tend  to  produce  such  con- 
fusion, more  especially  as  Gadara  and  Gerasa 
remained  well-known  names.  The  narrative 
is  given  in  substantially  the  same  way  by  Mark 
and  Luke,  though  with  some  differences  of  ar- 
rangement. Matthew's  report  is  more  brief  and 
compendi(jus,  and  differs  from  the  others  chiefly 
in  that  he  speaks  of  two  demoniacs,  while  they 
mention  only  one.  The  common  conjectiu-e  for 
explanation  is  that  there  were  two,  but  that  one 
was  so  far  inferior  to  the  other  in  violence  and 
prominence  as  to  pass  almost  unnoticed.  Plain- 
ly, there  is  notliing  impossible  in  this  conjecture, 
but  it  must  be  remembered  that  all  attempts  at 
reconciliation  must  be  conjectural,  the  facts  be- 
ing parth'  unknown  to  us.  In  the  present  nar- 
rative we  meet  with  only  one  demoniac. 

2-5.  This  appears  to  be  the  mo.st  violent 
case  of  demoniacal  possession  described  in  the 
Gospels.  It  is  also  the  most  fully  detailed  as 
to  its  outward  manifestations,  although  the 
case  in  chap.  9  is  more  minutely  described  as 
to  bodily  symptoms.  The  whole  description  is 
in  Mark's  most  vivid  style.  The  man  met  Je- 
sus immediately,  (m  the  very  shore,  as  he  was 
leaving  the  boat;  his  home  was  in  the  city 
(Luke),  but  he  had  long  been  living  in  the 
tombs.  These  are  still  to  be  seen  in  the  moun- 
tain back  of  Gersa — caves  in  the  mountain- 
side, natural  or  artificial.  They  might  be  large 
enough  to  give  shelter  to  a  man,  and,  as  they 
were  ceremonially  unclean  (Num.  19 :  le),  one  who 
was  insanely  shunning  human  society  would 
be  likely  to  seek  them ;  no  one  else,  certainly, 
would  resort  to  them.  All  maniacs  were  out- 
casts as  soon  as  they  became  violent,  for  that 
age  had  no  provision  for  taking  care  of  them. 
Institutions  of  pity  for  the  unfortunate  are 
among  the  gifts  of  Christ;  antiquity  knew 
nothing  of  them,  or  of  the  spirit  that  would 


produce  them.  The  power  of  the  evil  spirit  to 
produce  mental  insanity  in  its  worst  forms  is 
here  abundantly  illustrated.  The  disease  in 
chap.  9  is  epilepsy ;  here  it  is  pure  insanity. 
The  victim  flees  from  home;  he  is  sleepless 
and  vociferous  (according  to  the  Revision, 
"always,  night  and  day,  in  the  tombs  and  in 
the  mountains,  he  was  crying  out");  he  is 
given  to  injuring  himself  ("and  cutting  him- 
self with  stones") ;  he  is  violent  toward  others 
("so  that  no  one  was  able  to  pass  by  that 
way");  and  is  unnaturally  strong,  so  that  re- 
straint is  impossible.  The  language  of  verse  3 
in  the  best  text  introduces  the  despair  that  ex- 
perience has  occasioned :  "  And  no  one  could 
any  longer  bind  him" — it  had  been  tried  again 
and  again,  as  verse  4  tells,  but  his  preternatural 
strength  had  always  triumphed — "and  no  one 
had  strength  to  tame  him."  These  outward 
results  of  demoniacal  possession  were  horrible 
enough,  but  the  worst  was  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  victim — a  consciousness  that  seems 
to  have  been  strangely  and  liorribly  divided, 
now  the  man  and  now  the  demon  being  tlie 
centre. 

6-9.  The  order  seems  to  be,  the  boat  draws 
to  the  shore,  and  Jesus  disembarks ;  the  demo- 
niac sees  him  from  a  distance,  and  comes  run- 
ning to  the  place;  Jesus,  when  he  sees  him 
coming,  immediately  conunands  the  spirit  to 
come  out  of  him  (verse  8) ;  the  man  conies 
nearer,  bows  down  before  him,  and  cries  out 
as  in  verse  7;  then  follow  the  question  and 
answer  of  verse  9.  Worshipped  him — t.  e. 
bowed  down  before  him,  as  in  adoration.  The 
act  mtist  not  be  confoiuided  here  with  true 
worship,  of  which  there  certainly  was  nothing. 
But  there  was  confession,  in  exactly  the  spirit 
of  James  2  :  19:  "The  devils"  (demons)  "also 
believe,  and  tremble,"  or  "  shudder." — The  cry 
of  verse  7  was  a  cry  of  such  shuddering  recog- 
nition, accompanied  by  impotent  rage.  What 
have  I  to  do  with  thee?  Literally,  "What 
to  me  and  to  thee?"  exactly  as  at  chap.  1  :  24 
— a  cry  of  repulsion  corresponding  to  the  eter- 


72 


MARK. 


[Ch.  V. 


7  And  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  aiul  said,  What  have 
I  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus, /Ao?t  Son  of  tiie  .Most  HigliCiod? 
I  adjure  thee  liy  God  that  tliou  toriiK-nt  me  not. 

8  For  he  said  unto  him,  Come"  out  of  the  man,  thou 
unclean  spirit. 

9  And  he  asked  him.  What  u  thy  name?  And  he 
answered,  saying,  My  name  is  Legion:'  for  we  are 
many. 

10  And  he  besought  him  much,  that  he  would  not 
send  them  away  out  of  the  country. 


7  and  crying  out  with  a  loud  voice,  he  saith.  What 
have  I  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus,  thou  Son  of  the  Most 
High  (iod?     I  adjure  thee  by  (jod,  torment  me  not. 

8  For  he  said  unto  him.  Come  forth,  thou  unclean 
9 spirit,  out  of  the  maa.     And   he   asked  him,  What 

is  thy  name?    And  he  saith  unto  hiui.  My  name  is 

10  Legion  ;  for  we  are  many.    And  he  besought  him 

much  that  he  would  not  send  them  away  out  of  the 


o  Act8  16  :  18;  Heb.  2  :  U;  1  John  3:8 6  Matt.  12  :  45. 


nal  repulsion  between  the  two  kingdoms  which 
the  two  represented. — Jesus.  The  name  is 
inserted  in  Mark  and  Luke.  If  the  quotation  is 
exact,  the  name  would  seem  to  indicate  that 
the  man  had  heard  of  Jesus,  perhaps  had  seen 
him.  To  suppose  a  supernatural  knowledge 
of  his  human  name  on  the  part  of  the  spirit 
would  be  to  intniduce  something  to  the  record. 
— Son  of  the  Most  High  God.  This  name 
for  God  is  very  ancient  (oen.  u;i8),  and  was 
used  in  earlier  times  often  along  the  border- 
land between  the  Hebrew  faith  and  other 
monotheistic  religions.  So  it  appears  in  con- 
nection with  Melchizedek,  with  Balaam  (Num. 
24:16),  and  in  the  song  of  Moses  (oeui.  32:8),  at 
a  point  where  the  relation  of  Israel  to  otlier 
nations  is  brought  in.  Plainly,  the  name 
Most  High  is  one  of  the  simplest  expressions 
of  the  relation  of  God  to  the  world,  and  one 
in  which  monotheists  of  any  type  might  unite 
with  Jews  and  Christians.  In  the  later  Jewish 
period,  when  the  Jews  were  scattered  among 
the  nations,  it  became  a  very  frequent  word  in 
their  wi'itings,  being  often  used  in  the  Greek 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament.  "  It  was  one 
of  the  words  which,  in  later  as  in  earlier  times, 
helped  to  place  the  Gentile  and  the  Jew  on 
common  ground"  (Pliuiiptre).  The  same  writer 
thinks,  tiiougli  on  what  atithority  is  not  ap- 
parent, that  the  name  was  often  used  in  exor- 
cism, and  that  this  fact  accounts  for  its  appear- 
ing in  the  sjieech  of  demoniacs  here  and  at 
Acts  16  :  17,  this  being  the  name  of  God  that 
they  had  most  frequently  heard.— •  ac^jure 
thee  by  God,  torment  me  not.  The  adju- 
ration is  peculiar  to  Mark ;  Luke,  "  I  beseech 
thee;"  Matthew,  "Art  thou  come  hither  to 
torment  us  before  the  time?"  in  wliich  the 
expectation  of  coming  torment  is  clearly  ad- 
mitted and  Jesus  is  recognized  as  the  person 
who  is  to  be  feared. — The  word  of  adjuration 
[orkizo)  is  the  word  from  which  our  word  "  ex- 
orcise" is  derived.  The  evil  sjiirit,  in  its  fear, 
is  trying  to  match  the  command  of  Jesus  by  a 
counter-command  in  the  very  name  that  it 
dreads.  Jesus  has  said.  Come  out  of  the 
man,  and  the  spirit  demands,  in  the  name  of 


God  himself,  to  be  let  alone.  How  little  could 
an  evil  spirit  conceive  of  the  spiritual  unity 
of  Jesus  with  God!  To  such  a  spirit  "God" 
meant  only  power,  and  hated  power ;  and  the 
spirit  may  have  dimly  thought  that  the  name 
of  God  would  act  as  a  name  of  power  on  Jesus, 
even  as  on  itself. — The  next  question  of  Jesus, 
What  is  thy  name?  was  an  attempt  to  recall 
the  man  to  the  remembrance  of  his  humanity. 
— But  the  answer  came  from  the  indwelling 
power,  not  from  the  man,  the  horrid  possessor 
giving  a  name  that  was  mockery  to  the  per- 
sonality of  his  victim.  My  name  is  Legion  : 
for  we  are  many.  Legion,  a  Roman  troop, 
varying  in  number  at  ditferent  times,  but  well 
enough  represented  by  six  thousand,  which 
was  nearly  the  maximum. — Note  the  shifting 
and  divided  consciousness,  first  singular  and 
then  plural.  My  name,  .  .  .  for  we.  The 
appropriateness  of  the  name  Legion  seems  to 
be  assumed  by  the  evangelist  in  verse  15,  "  Him 
that  had  the  legion."  Possibly  it  was  a  name 
that  he  had  often  given  to  himself,  and  one 
that  had  become  familiar  to  those  who  knew 
him. 

10.  From  this  point  there  is  a  change.  In 
verse  2  it  was  an  unclean  spirit ;  but  now, 
after  the  word  Legion  has  been  uttered,  the 
possessing  power  is  spoken  of  in  the  plural — 
them,  and  in  verse  13  the  unclean  spirits. 
In  Luke  the  man  was  introduced  at  the  begin- 
ning as  one  who  had  "  demons,"  but  not  so  in 
Mark. — In  verse  10  the  variable  consciousness 
sadly  appears  again,  the  man  identifying  him- 
self and  his  interests  for  the  time  with  the 
destiny  of  the  spirits  that  have  been  torment- 
ing him.  He  (tlieman)  besought  him  much, 
that  he  would  not  send  them  (the  sj)irits) 
away  out  of  the  country,  the  surround- 
ing region.  According  to  Mark,  the  spirits 
begged  (through  the  man)  to  be  allowed  to 
linger  about  the  place  wliere  they  had  been 
dwelling ;  according  to  Luke,  to  be  allowed  to 
remain  out  of  "the  abyss" — not  "the  deep," 
which  many  readers  have  confounded  with  the 
sea,  but  the  "  bottomless  pit,"  the  place  of  tlieir 
final  misery.     The  same  word  occurs  in  Rev.  9 : 


Ch.  v.] 


MARK. 


73 


11  Now  there  was  there,  nigh  unto  the  mountains,  a 
great  herd  of  swine"  feuding. 

12  And  all  the  devils  besought'  him,  saying,  Send  us 
into  the  swine,  that  we  may  enter  into  tliem. 

13  And  forthwith  Jesus  gave=  them  leave.  And  the 
unclean  spirits  went  out,  and  entered  into  the  swine: 
and  the  herd  ran  violently  down  a  steep  place  into  tlie 
sea,  (they  were  about  two  thousand,;  and  were  cholced 
in  the  sea. 


11  country.  Now  there  was  th*re  on  the  mountain  side 

12  a  great  herd  of  swine  feeding.  And  they  besought 
him,  saying,  Send  us  into  the  swine,  that  we  may 

13  enter  into  them.  And  he  gave  them  leave.  And  the 
unclean  spirits  came  out,  and  entered  into  the  swine : 
and  the  herd  rushed  down  the  steep  into  the  sea,  in 
number  about  two  thousand:  and  they  were  choked 


a  Lev.  U  :  7,  8;  Deut.  14:  8 5  Job  1  :  10,  12;  2:5,  6....cReT.  13  :  7  ;  1  Pet.  3  :  22. 


1 ;  20 : 1,  etc.  Even  demons  were  pleading  with 
their  Master  for  mercy.  For  a  hint  of  the  state 
of  lesser  misery  which  they  preferred,  see  Matt. 
12  :  43. 

11-13.  The  herd  of  swine  was  nigh  unto 
the  mountains,  or  "on  the  mountain-side." 
In  Matthew,  "far  off" — i.  e.  at  some  distance; 
in  sight,  but  not  close  at  hand. — All  the  devils, 
or  "  demons,"  at  the  beginning  of  verse  12,  is  to 
be  omitted;  so  is  forthwith,  at  tlie  beginning 
of  verse  13. — Send  us  into  the  swine,  that 
we  may  enter  into  them.  A  desperate  pro- 
posal. Of  course,  tlicy  could  not  expect  him  to 
permit  them  to  enter  again  into  human  beings, 
and  this  wa.s  the  only  chance  they  .saw  of  re- 
maining at  liberty.  Wliy  did  Jesus  give  the 
permission?  We  cannot  fully  answer  the  ques- 
tion, but  we  may  be  sure  that  it  was  for  some 
reason  connected  with  tlie  welfare  of  the  man. 
Perhaps,  in  view  of  his  divided  state,  it  was 
necessary  that  he  should  see  the  evil  power  ac- 
tually removed  from  him,  and  behold  the  evi- 
dence by  seeing  its  miscliief  wrouglit  in  some- 
tliing  else,  before  he  could  surely  believe  in  the 
restoration  of  himself  to  himself  If  it  were 
thus  necessary  that  the  evil  should  be  made 
visible  apart  from  the  man,  it  wa.s  right  and  | 
merciful  to  allow  it  to  be  done  in  tlie  brutes 
that  were  at  hand.  The  act  thus  comes  into 
likeness  with  the  blighting  of  the  fruitless  fig 
tree  for  the  illustration  of  spiritual  things 
(Matt.  21 :  18-20). — Tlic  cffect,  howcvcr,  is  a  com- 
plete surprise.  As  to  the  place,  the  most  accu- 
rate account  of  it,  from  careful  observation,  is  , 
given  by  J.  Macgregor,  in  the  Rob  Roy  on  the  ' 
Jordan,  p.  411.  On  the  mountain  back  of  the  ' 
lake  he  saw  a  large  herd  of  animals  of  various 
kinds  feeding  together.  Between  tlie  base  of 
the  mountain  and  the  water  is  a  narrow  plain.  I 
Macgregor  says  :  "  We  are  told  that  the  whole 
herd  of  swine  ran  violently  down  a  steep  place. 
Literally,  it  is  'down  the  steep'  in  all  three  re- 
ports. It  does  not  say  that  it  was  a  high  place, 
but  steep,  and  that  they  ran  (not  fell)  down  this 
into  the  sea.  There  are  several  steeps  near  the 
sea  here,  but  onl_y  one  so  close  to  the  water  as 
to  make  it  sure  that  if  a  herd  ran  violently  down, 
they  would  go  into  the  sea.     Here,  for  a  full  j 


half  mile,  the  beach  is  of  a  form  different  from 
any  other  round  the  lake,  and  from  any  that  I 
have  noticed  in  any  lake  or  sea  before.  It  is 
flat  until  close  to  the  edge.  There  a  hedge  of 
oleanders  fringes  the  end  of  the  plain,  and  im- 
mediately below  these  is  a  gravel  beach  inclined 
so  steep  that  when  my  boat  was  at  the  shore  I 
could  not  see  over  the  top  even  by  standing  up ; 
while  the  water  alongside  is  so  deep  that  it  cov- 
ered my  paddle  (seven  feet  long)  when  dipped 
vertically  a  few  feet  from  the  shore.  Now,  if 
the  swine  rushed  along  this  short  plain  toward 
this  hedge  of  underwood  (and  in  the  delta  of 
Semakh  their  usual  feeding -place  would  be 
often  among  thick  brushwood  of  this  kind), 
they  would  instantly  pass  through  theshrubs  and 
then  down  the  steep  gravel  beyond  into  the  deep 
water,  where  they  would  surely  be  drowned." 

As  to  the  event  itself,  as  it  is  a  surprise  to  the 
reader,  so  it  may  have  been  to  the  sjiirits.  (1) 
The  spirits  desired  an  abode  in  the  swine, 
to  keep  them  from  being  driven  to  the  abyss. 
(2)  The  drowning  of  the  swine  left  the  sjiir- 
its without  an  abode.  (3)  Hence  it  cannot 
have  been  at  the  impulse  of  the  spirits  that  the 
swine  rushed  to  their  death.  (4)  Tlie  natural 
conclusion  is  that  the  spirits  failed  to  effect  a 
union  with  the  powers  of  the  swine,  but  tliat 
tlie  approach  of  the  unwonted  disturbing  power 
to  the  natures  of  the  animals  only  excited  them 
and  caused  them  to  rush  to  tlieir  own  destruc- 
tion. The  fact  that  tlie  ordinary  word  for  en- 
tering into  a  person  is  used  of  the  ajiproach  of 
the  demons  to  the  swine  does  not  disprove  this 
explanation,  the  evangelists  liaving  made  no 
attempt  accurately  to  represent  the  jisycholog- 
ical  peculiarities  of  the  transaction.  The  greater 
desire  of  the  demons  was  certainly  disappointed, 
while  the  less  was  granted ;  and  there  apjiears 
no  way  but  this  to  account  for  it,  unless  we  sup- 
pose that  Jesus  by  his  own  will  drove  the  swine 
to  death — a  much  less  plausible  explanation. 
Why  did  Jesus  permit  the  swine  to  perish? 
According  to  this  view,  they  did  not  perish 
directly  by  liis  act,  but  as  a  result  of  his  per- 
nii.ssion  of  what  j^roved  impossible.  The  sug- 
gestion that  he  destroyed  the  swine,  or  consent- 
ed to  their  destruction,  for  a  rebuke  and  punish- 


74 


MARK. 


[Ch.  V. 


14  And  they  that  fed  the  swine  fled,  and  told  it  in 
the  city,  and  in  the  country.  And  they  went  out  to 
see  what  it  was  that  was  done. 

15  And  they  come  to  Jesus,  and  see  him  that  was 
possessed  with  the  devil,  and"  had  the  legion,  sitting, 
and  clothed,  and  in  his  right  mind:  and  they  were 
afraid.' 

16  And  they  that  saw  it,  told  them  how  it  befell  to 
him  that  was  possessed  with  the  devil,  and  also  con- 
cerning the  swine. 

17  And  they  began  to  pray  him  to  depart"  out  of 
their  coasts. 

18  And  when  he  was  come  into  the  ship,  he  that  had 
been  possessed  with  the  devil  prayed  him  that  he  might 
be  with  him. 

19  llowbeit,  Jesus  suffered  hini  not,  but  saith  unto 
him.  Go  home  to  thy  friends,  and**  tell  them  how  great 
things  the  Lord  hath  done  for  thee,  and  hath  had  com- 
passion ou  tliee. 


14  in  the  .sea.  And  they  that  fed  them  fled,  and  told  it 
in  the  city,  and  in  the  country.     And  they  came  to 

15 see  what  it  was  ihat  had  come  to  pass.  And  they 
come  to  Jesus,  and  behold  'him  that  was  possessed 
with  demons  sitting,  clothed  and  in  his  right  mind, 
even  him  that  had  the  legion  :  and  they  were  afraid. 

IG  And  they  that  saw  it  declared  unto  them  how  it  be- 
fell 'him  that  was  possessed  with  demons,  and  con- 

17  cerning  the  swine.    And  they  began  to  beseech  liim 

18  to  depart  from  their  borders.  And  as  he  was  enter- 
ing into  the  boat,  he  that  had  been  possessed  with 
demons  besought  him  that  he  might  be  with  him. 

19  And  he  suti'ered  him  not,  but  saith  unto  him,  (io  to 
thy  house  unto  thy  friends,  and  tell  them  how  great 
things  the  Lord  hath  done  for  thee,  and  how  he  had 


olsa.  49  :  25;  Col.  1  :  13.... 6  Job  13  ;  11 ;  Pi 


;  2  Tim.  1:7 c  Job  21  :  U  ;  Luke  5:8;  Acts  16  :  39...  .d  Ps.  66  :  16; 

Isa.  38  :  19. 1  Or,  the  demoniac 


nient  upon  the  guilt  of  keeping  them  contrary 
to  the  law  of  Moses  is  somewhat  weakened  by 
the  fact  that  this  eastern  side  of  the  lake  was 
partly  Gentile  territory,  together  with  the  fact 
that  pork  was  a  staple  article  of  food  with  the 
Roman  soldiers ;  so  that  their  presence  in  the 
land  would  inevitably  secure  the  keeping  of 
herds  of  swine.  Nor  does  it  seem  like  our 
Lord,  who  expressly  disclaimed  all  judging  of 
men  (Luke  12:  u:  Joim  5:  IS;  8: 15;  12: 47),  thus  to  in- 
terfere to  execute  punishment  in  behalf  of  the 
law  of  Moses.  More  likely  this  was  a  part  of 
that  visible  work  of  the  evil  power  outside  of 
the  man  which  he  saw  to  be  necessary  to  the 
man's  best  welfare.  "  Those  who  measure 
rightly  the  value  of  a  human  spirit  thus  re- 
stored to  itself,  to  its  fellow-men,  and  to  God 
will  not  think  that  the  destruction  of  brute- 
life  was  too  dear  a  price  to  pay  for  its  restora- 
tion "  (Phiniptre). 

14-17.  The  swineherds,  and  ai)parently  some 
others  (verse  16),  had  witnessed  the  event.  The 
swineherds  fled,  amazed  and  indignant,  and  told 
the  story,  and  the  peojjle  flocked  out  from  city 
and  country,  curiously  gazing.  "Tlie  whole 
city,"  Matthew  ;  "  the  whole  multitude  of  the 
region  of  the  Gcrgesenes,"  Luke.  When  they 
liad  come,  the  witnesses  of  the  act  again  repeated 
the  story,  both  concerning  tlie  demoniac  and  con- 
cerning the  swine.  As  to  tlie  man,  he  was  sit- 
ting, and  clothed,  and  in  his  right  mind, 
"at  the  feet  of  Jesus"  (Luke) ;  and  they  were 
afraid,  or,  as  in  Luke,  "  were  held  with  great 
fear."  This  was  something  new  and  strange; 
alarming  too,  thougli  a  work  of  grace,  for  it 
startled  their  dulness.  Doubtless  we  might  ex- 
pect them  to  be  unwilling  that  such  acts  as  the 
destruction  of  the  swine  .should  be  made  fre- 
quent among  them ;  but  the  restoration  of  tlie 
man  seems  also  to  have  been  one  of  the  grounds 
of  their  rei)ulsion  from  Jesus.     Instead  of  "  ad- 


oration "  or  "  rejoicing,"  "  fear  "  is  the  word  that 
describes  their  feeling ;  yet  this  was  no  holy  and 
fruitful  fear.  Compare  the  exorcism  at  Acts  19  : 
13-17,  when  the  resulting  fear  turned  to  the 
magnifying  of  the  name  of  Jesus.  The  true 
song  for  the  man  would  be  that  of  Ps.  40  :  1-3, 
but  the  last  words  would  fail  him  :  "  Many  shall 
see  it  and  fear,  and  shall  trust  in  the  Lord." 
Not  so  of  these  people :  they  saw  it  and  feared, 
and  begged  the  Lord  to  dei)art  out  of  tlieir  bor- 
ders. This  was  too  much  like  making  a  reality 
of  divine  power,  and  they  did  not  wish  to  re- 
tain any  such  element  in  their  life.  Jesus 
seemed  to  them  a  disturber ;  so  he  is — a  dis- 
turber of  spiritual  stagnation,  a  disturber  of 
the  dulness  of  death ;  but  alas  for  those  who 
see  him  only  in  this  character!  On  similar 
grounds  Jesus  is  often  sent  away  still,  men 
dreading  him  as  an  agitator  who  threatens  to 
make  their  life  too  earnest. 

18-20.  The  request  was  not  made  in  vain. 
The  case  was  not  unlike  that  of  chap.  6:5: 
there  was  no  sympathy  with  his  aims,  and  thus 
no  basis  in  the  popular  spirit  for  his  great  works 
of  mercy.  He  went  back  to  the  boat,  ajiparcnt- 
ly,  without  having  gone  up  to  the  town  at  all. — 
But  the  man — no  wonder  that  he  clung  to  tlie 
Healer  at  whose  word  the  dreadful  incubus  had 
fled  and  the  freshness  and  sweetness  of  natural 
life  had  returned.  No  one  like  Jesus  for  this 
man  to  gaze  upon  ;  and  he  begged  for  the  op- 
portunity to  be  with  him  in  a  life  of  following, 
gazing,  contemplation.  Perliaps,  too,  he  was 
half  afraid  that  tlie  evil  might  return  if  he 
were  left  alone. — But  tlie  Master  knew  a  more 
excellent  way.  Go  home  (to  thy  house)  to 
thy  friends,  and  tell  them.  Thy  house, 
long  deserted  for  the  tombs;  thy  friends,  who 
have  given  up  all  attempts  to  bind  thee — go  to 
them,  clothed  and  in  thy  riglit  mind,  and  tell 
them  hoAV   great  things   the   Lord   hath 


Ch.  v.] 


MARK. 


75 


20  And  he  departed,  and  began  to  publish  in  De- 
capolis  liovv  ^reat  things  Jesus  liad  done  tor  him:  and 
all  mm  did  marvel. 

21  And  when  .lesus  was  passed  over  again  by  ship 
unto  the  other  side,  much  people  gathered  unto  him: 
and  he  was  uigh  unto  the  sea. 


20  mercy  on  thee.  And  he  went  his  way,  and  began  to 
publish  in  Decapolis  how  great  things  Jesus  had 
done  lor  him:  and  all  men  did  marvel. 

21  And  when  Jesu.s  had  cro.s.sed  over  again  in  the 
boat  unto  the  other  side,  a  great  multitude  was 


done  for  thee.    The  effect  ought  to  be  as  in 
Acts  4  :  14,  or,  ratlicr,  as  in  Act.s  9  :  35-42.— The 
Lord — L  e.  God  (as  in  Luke)  thruuj^h  the  agency 
of  Jesus.    The  collocation  and  comparison  of 
titles  here  cannot  projicrly  be  used  to  prove  the 
deity  of  Chri.st.     From  this  command  it  is  evi- 
dent that  Jesus  desired  to  be  known  on  that 
side  of  the  lake  as  widely  as  possible.    Him- 
self in  iKTson  the  people  were  not  ready  to  re- 
ceive, I)Ut  this  trophy  of  his  power  might  con- 
vince them. — He  proclaimed   in  Decapolis. 
Specified  by  Mark  alone.     The  name  means 
"  ten  cities,"   or,   rather,   "  the   region  of  ten 
cities."    Soon  after  the  Romans  took  the  coun- 
try (b.  c.  G5)  ten  cities — all,  or  nearly  all,  east 
of  the  Jordan — were  rebuilt  by  the  conquerors 
and  endowed  with  certain  privileges;  and  the 
district  took  its  name  fro;u  this  fact.   The  names 
of  the  cities  are  not  given  with  uniformity  by 
ancient  writers,  and  the  limits  of  the  district 
that  was  called  Decapolis  cannot  1)C  very  def- 
initely ascertained.     Gadara  was  one  of  the  ten. 
The  name  "  Decapolis "   appears  in   the  New 
Testament  only  liere  and  at  Matt.  4  :  25  and 
Mark  7  :31. — How  extensive  the  man's  grateful 
ministry  was,  (jf  course  we  cannot  tell.     Luke 
says,  "Throughout  the  whole  city;"  Mark,  in 
Decapolis.     Mark  adds  that  all   men  did 
marvel,  hut  it  is  not  said   whether  any  be- 
lieved.    There  are  no  clear  signs  of  any  fruitful 
ministry  among  the  dwellers  on  that  side  of  the 
lake. — As  to  the  wisdom  or  folly  of  sending 
Jesus  away,  the  remaining  part  of  the  chapter 
affords  ample  illustration   of   the  truth.     No 
more  of  the  tormented   were  released  in  the 
country  of  the  Gera.senes,  and  none  of  the  sick 
were  lioaled.     Tiie  lionl  went  back  to  raise  the 
daughter  of  Jairus  from  the  dead,  and  to  jumr 
new   life  into   the  body  of  the   woman    who 
touched  the  hem  of  his  garment  in  the  throng; 
but  none  of  these  thing's  were  done  among  the 
Gerasenes  :  they  had  sent  hint  away.     The  peo- 
ple could  remain  in  their  dulness  too,  for  they 
had  sent  away  the  only  One  who  threatened  to 
disturb  them  with  a  blessing.     Whoever  dis- 
misses Jesus  as  an  unwelcome  disturber  may 
in  like  manner  be  left  in  quietnc^^s,  but  it  is  the 
quietness  that  marks  the  absence  of  true  life, 
the  peace  which  is  no  peace;  and  there  is  no 
evil  like  that.     Whoever  .sends  him  away  ntust 
by  hiiti  be  sent  away.    (Compare  Luke  12  :  8,  9 
with  Matt.  25  :  41.) 


21-43.  A  WOMAN  WITH  AN  ISSUE  OP 
BLOOD  IS  HEALED,  AND  THE  DAUGH- 
TER OF  JAIRUS  IS  RAISED  FROM  THE 
DEAD.  Parallch,  Matt.  9  :  18-2G ;  Luke  8  : 
40-56. — Mark  and  Luke  agree  in  the  order 
here,  expressly  connecting  this  narrative  with 
that  of  the  liealing  of  the  Gerasene  demoniac. 
Matthew  expressly  connects  it  with  our  Lord's 
discourse  on  fasting  (9:14-17),  which  ^Nlark  has 
already  recorded  (2  -.  is-w),  at  such  a  point  as  to 
indicate  that  a  considerable  time  intervened 
between  that  and  this.  Of  course  our  Lord 
often  met  the  same  objections,  and  may  liave 
encountered  the  question  about  fasting  on  two 
occasions  and  given  it  twice  the  same  answer. 
This  would  accotmt  for  tlie  recurrence  of  the 
remarks  on  fasting  in  two  connections,  but 
scarcely  for  Matthew's  ignoring  of  the  fact  that 
there  were  two  connections.  As  to  that,  how- 
ever, it  ajipears  that  Matthew,  in  his  practice 
of  grouping  events  according  to  an  inward 
connection  rather  than  in  the  order  of  time, 
does  not  always  strictly  adapt  his  connective 
words  to  the  new  place  which  his  method 
gives  to  narratives.  It  occasionally  seems  as 
if  lie  transferred  a  finished  paragrapli,  witli  its 
introductory  connective  word  already  fitted  to 
its  context,  to  a  new  place  suggested  by  liis 
principle  of  grouping,  without  changing  the 
introductory  connective.  Especially  in  the 
group  of  miracles  in  chaps.  8,  9  is  it  difficult 
to  insist  upon  the  appropriateness  of  his  con- 
nectives. If  we  may  draw  an  inference  from 
his  practice,  it  seems  possible  that  the  con- 
nective phrase,  "While  he  wius  speaking  these 
thing-s"  (Matt.  9:18),  may  have  been  designed  to 
suit  a  different  context  from  the  one  in  whicli 
we  find  it. 

21.  The  miracle  on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
lake  took  place  in  the  early  morning,  and  later 
in  the  day  Jesus  and  liis  company  were  back  • 
on  the  western  side,  but  not  in  the  town  of 
Capernaum.  He  was  nigh  unto  the  sea, 
and  there  the  crowd  gathered  to  him,  having 
been  waiting  (Luke)  for  his  return.  Possibly 
the  change  in  his  mode  of  teaching  and  the 
introduction  of  i>arables  liad  for  the  time 
quickened  the  jiopular  cin-iosity. 

22-24.  One  of  the  rulers  of  the  syn- 
agogue. Presunuihly  the  synagogue  in  Caper- 
naum, though  nothing  positively  determines  the 
place. — The  name  Jairus  is  tiie  Greek  form 


76 


MARK. 


[Ch.  V. 


22  And,"  behold,  there  cometh  one  of  the  rulers  of 
the  synagogue,  Jairus  by  name ;  and  when  he  saw  him, 
he  fell  at  his  feet, 

23  And  besought  him  greatly,  saying.  My  little 
daughter  lieth  at  the  point'  of  death  :  1  pray  Ihce.  come 
and  lay  thy  hands  on  her,  that  she  may  be  healed ;  and 
she  shall  live. 

■24  And  Jenus  went  with  him;  and  much  people  fol- 
lowed him,  and  thronged  him. 

25  And  a  certain  woman,  which  had  an  issue"  of 
blood  twelve  years, 


22  gathered  unto  him :  and  he  was  by  the  sea.  And 
there  cometh  one  of  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue, 
Jairus  by  name ;  and  .seeing  him,  he  lalleth  at  his 

23  feet,  and  beseecheth  him  much,  saying.  My  little 
daughter  is  at  the  point  of  death:  /  ■jinnj  llife,  that 
thou  come  and  lay  thy  hands  on  her,  that  she  may 

24  be  huade  whole,  and  live.  And  he  went  with  him  ; 
and  a  great  multitude  followed  hiiu,  and  they 
thronged  him. 

25  And  a  woman,  who  had  an  issue  of  blood  twelve 


oMatt.  9  :  18,  etc.  ;  Luke  8  :  41,  etc 6  Ps.  107:  18 c  Lev.  15  :  19,  etc.- 


of  the  Hebrew  "  Jair;"  it  is  the  name  of  one 
who  was  a  great  man  at  the  conquest  of  Ca- 
naan (Deut.  3 :  u),  and  later  of  one  of  the  Judges 
of  Israel  (Judg.  io:3-5).  Of  Jairus  nothing  is 
known  except  what  is  recorded  here.  If,  as  is 
probably  the  case,  he  was  a  ruler  of  the  syn- 
agogue in  Capernaum,  he  would  naturally  be 
one  of  those  who  were  sent  by  the  centurion 
who  had  "  built  a  synagogue  "  to  intercede  for 
him  when  his  servant  was  sick  (Luke  7: 3).  In 
that  case  he  would  be  no  stranger  to  the  heal- 
ing power  of  Jesus,  and  his  confidence  would 
be  fully  explained. — His  eagerness  ai)pears  in 
his  falling  down  at  Jesus'  feet  and  liis  entreat- 
ing him  greatly,  "  much  " — i.  e.  earnestly  and 
persistently. — My  little  daughter  lieth  at 
the  point  of  death.  The  phrase  cschdtos 
echei,  paraphrased  at  the  point  of  death,  is 
late  Greek,  and  is  said  to  have  been  con- 
demned by  the  grammarians  as  bad  Greek. 
Ltike  says  that  "  he  had  an  only  daughter, 
about  twelve  years  of  age,  and  she  was  dying," 
not  "  lay  a  dying."  Thus  Mark  and  Luke 
agree  i>erfectly  in  their  statement ;  but,  in  Mat- 
thew, Jairus  says,  "My  daughter  just  now 
died."  The  Greek  verb  is  in  the  aorist,  and 
"is  even  now  dead"  is  not  a  good  translation 
of  it :  that  she  has  died  already  is  distinctly 
affirmed.  But  the  discrepancy  is  much  less 
than  one  might  think.  Matthew  tells  the 
story  compendiously ;  he  omits  all  reference 
to  the  subsequent  message  from  the  liouse,  in 
whicli  the  tidings  of  her  death  are  brought; 
and  he  groups  the  two  communications  in 
one,  making  Jairus  tell  the  whole  in  a  single 
sentence.  He  gathers  into  this  first  request 
all  the  information  about  the  case  that  was 
brought  to  Jesus  before  he  readied  the  house. 
In  Luke  the  request  is  only  that  lie  will  come 
to  the  house;  in  Mark  and  Matthew  tlie  re- 
quest is  added  that  he  will  lay  his  liands  upon 
her,  witli  the  full  expression  of  confidence  that 
tliat  will  be  the  means  of  restoration — accord- 
ing to  tlie  story  as  it  is  in  Mark,  of  restoration 
from  tlie  verge  of  death;  according  to  Mat- 
thew, of  restoration  from  death  itself.  A  beau- 
tiful example  of  confident  resorting  to  the  grace 


and  power  of  the  Saviour.  It  was  not  in  vain  ; 
no  refusal  awaited  such  an  appeal.  The  re- 
quest was  brought  to  the  lake-shore,  where 
Jesus  arrived  in  the  boat.  What  he  was  doing 
we  are  not  told ;  perhaps  he  had  not  had  time 
to  begin  ;  or  Jairus  may  even  have  been  among 
those  who  were  "  waiting  for  him  "  when  he 
came. — The  crowd  heard  the  request,  and  fol- 
lowed, as  Jesus  went  with  him,  up  from 
the  lake-side  into  the  town.  He  let  them  fol- 
low for  a  part  of  the  way,  not  turning  them 
back  until  his  own  time  had  come.  He  was 
not  lielpless  in  the  matter;  lie  did  escape  from 
the  crowd  when  he  was  ready  to  insist  uj)on 
it.  Both  in  Mark  and  in  Luke  the  words  that 
describe  the  pressure  of  the  throng  are  very 
strong  words  ;  in  Luke,  "  crowd  to  suffocation  " 
well  represents  it.  Not  much  rest  for  our  Sav- 
iour after  the  overpowering  weariness  of  the 
previous  evening — only  the  sleep  on  the  boat. 
The  healing  and  the  repulse  across  the  lake,  a 
crowd  waiting  for  him  on  his  return,  and  now 
a  call  to  go  and  give  life  to  a  dying  child !  But 
his  compassion  never  failed,  and  he  never  con- 
sidered himself.  We  have  no  reason  to  imagine 
that  any  consideration  of  iiimself  ever  held  liim 
back  from  a  deed  of  love.  He  was  the  one  per- 
fectly unselfish  Being,  never  false  to  this  divine 
character.  God  is  the  unselfish  One,  and  Christ 
is  the  manifestation  of  God. 

25-34.  Here  is  a  story  within  a  story,  a  mir- 
acle within  a  miracle.  Between  the  beginning 
and  the  completion  of  the  work  undertaken  in 
behalf  of  Jairus  this  healing  comes  in,  as  if  to 
illustrate  t  he  abimdance  of  his  power.  The  whole 
scene  with  Jairus  is  an  illustration,  on  the  earth- 
ly plane,  of  the  truth  of  Eph.  3  :  20.  Mark  and 
Luke  tell  this  story  much  alike;  Matthew  very 
coiiii)endi()usly,  omitting  everything  but  the  se- 
cret toucli  and  the  word  of  healing.  Clark's  nar- 
rative of  this  event  is  one  of  the  best  specimens 
of  his  grapliic  style. 

(1)  The  Occasion. — The  woman  had  suffered 
twelve  years,  or  as  long  as  the  child  who  was 
dying  in  the  house  of  Jairus  had  lived.  She 
had  suffered  not  only  from  disease,  but  also 
from  the  physicians.    That  she  had  spent  lier 


Ch.  v.] 


MARK. 


77 


26  And  had  siifTercd  many  things  of  many  phy- 
sicians, and  had  s|K-nt  all  that  she  had,  and  wsis  noth- 
ing" bettfiud,  hut  lathur  prew  worst", 

27  WliL'ii  she  had  heard  of  Jesus,  came  in  the  press 
behind,  and  touchcil'  liis  )^anuent : 

'iH  lor  she  said,  If  I  may  touch  but  his  clothes,  I 
shall  be  whole. 

■J;»  And  straifihtway  the  fountain  of  her  blood  was 
dried  uji :  and  she  felt  in  her  body  that  she  was  healed 
of  that  plague. 


26  years,  and  had  suffered  many  things  of  many  physi- 
cians, and  had  spent  all  that  she  had,  and  was  notb- 

27  ing  bettered,  but  rather  grew  worse,  having  heard 
the  things  concerning  .Jesus,  came  in  the  crowd  be- 

2.S  hind,  and  touched  his  garment.     I' or  she  said.  If  I 

29  touch  but  his  garments,  1  shall  be  'made  whole.   And 

straightway  the  fountain  of  her  blood  was  dried  up* 

and  she  "felt  in  her  body  that  she  was  healed  of  her 


a  Job  1.1  :  4  i  Pa.  108  :  12  ;  Jer.  30  :  12,  13 b  2  Kings  13  :  21 :  Matt.  14  :  36;  Acts  5  :  15  ;  19  :  12.- 


all  upon  them  is  mentioned  by  Mark  and  Luke ; 
that  she  had  been  injured  by  them,  by  Mark 
alone.  It  is  nothing  strange  tliat  she  suffered 
many  things  at  their  liands,  fo'-  the  medical 
treatment  of  tliat  day  among  tlie  Jews  was  of 
tlie  most  puerile  and  contemptible  description. 
Tlie  illustrations  that  are  given  in  Geikie's  Life 
and  Words  of  Chrht,  2. 107-1G9,  present  an  aston- 
ishing mi.xture  of  ignorance,  superstition,  and 
recklessness.  Of  many  of  the  recipes,  the  best 
that  can  be  said  is  tliat  they  are  harmless  and 
foolish ;  of  many  the  harmlessness  cannot  be 
predicated.  Among  the  remedies  proposed  for 
such  a  case  as  this,  of  hemorrhage,  the  follow- 
ing, given  in  the  Talmud,  is  one  of  the  least 
injurious:  "Set  the  woman  in  a  place  where 
two  ways  meet,  and  let  her  hold  a  cup  of  wine 
111  her  right  hand,  and  let  some  one  come  be- 
hind ami  frigiiten  her,  and  say,  Arise  from  tliy 
flux."  In  all  the  remedies  that  are  there  de- 
tailed this  tinal  command,  "Arise  from  thy 
tlu.x,"  appears  to  be  an  element  in  which  some 
confidcni^'e  was  reposed.  Evidently  twelve  years 
of  such  treatment  would  be  worse  than  one. — 
Mark  adds  that  she  had  heard  of  Jesus  ;  more 
correc;tly,  "the  things  coiueniing  Jesus'" — I.  e. 
the  reports  of  what  he  had  done.  Her  faith  came 
by  hearing;  that  of  Jairus,  perhaps,  by  seeing. 
CI)  Thi-;  Appiu).\rH,  and  the  Touch  of  Faith. 
— The  woman  was  ceremonially  unclean  under 
the  law  written  at  Lev.  15  :  125,  and  her  disease 
was  one  that  modesty  would  impel  her  to  con- 
ceal. Hence  her  secret  approach,  coming  in 
the  press  behind.  Hence,  also,  tlie  slight- 
ness  of  the  touch  that  she  ventured  upon  :  she 
would  not  do  so  much  as  to  run  the  least  risk 
of  being  discovered. — Yet  she  had  full  con- 
fidence that  even  the  slightest  touch  would 
not  be  in  vain.  Slie  said  to  herself.  If  I  may 
touch  but  his  clothes,  I  shall  be  whole; 
and  so  she  touched  "  tiie  border" — not  "the 
hem  " — of  his  garment.  It  was  the  fringe  or 
ta.ssel  which  all  Jews  wore  upon  their  giirments, 
in  accordance  with  the  law  of  Num.  15  :  38,  39. 
It  was  given  them  upon  their  clothes  to  serve 
as  a  constant  reminder  of  the  law  of  (Jod,  which 
it  was  their  duty  to  obey.  Upon  this  fringe, 
hanging  upon  the  back  of  Jesus'  outer  garment, 


the  woman  laid  her  hand.  Even  such  contact 
as  this  would  render  Jesus  unclean  until  the 
evening  (Lev.  i5:i9)  if  it  were  understood  and 
strictly  interpreted ;  and  perhaps  she  feared  it 
might  be  forbidden  her  if  she  sought  it  more 
openly.  So  this  was  a  timid  act  of  unques- 
tioning faith.  That  he  could  heal  she  did  not 
doubt ;  but  that  there  was  a  better  way  than 
this  to  approach  him  she  did  not  i)erceive. 
How  shall  we  estimate  her  foith? — as  strong  or 
weak?  Regarded  as  confidence  in  his  power  to 
heal,  it  was  strong — as  strong,  perhajjs,  as  that 
of  Jairus,  or  of  any  other  whom  Jesus  bles.sed 
by  his  miraculous  working.  Even  in  her  tim- 
idity, too,  there  was  a  certain  boldness — the 
boldness  that  dared  to  be  persistent — which  we 
cannot  but  admire.  Happy  was  she  that  she 
dared  approach  Jesus  from  behind,  if  she  dared 
not  come  to  him  from  before.  Yet  this  was  in- 
ferior faith,  not  intelligent  or  highly  spiritual. 
If  she  shrank  from  Jesus,  then  certainly  she 
did  not  know  him,  and  was  not  trusting  him 
as  he  loves  to  lie  trusted.  She  trusted  his 
power,  but  did  not  yet  know  his  heart.  No 
one  who  knows  him  well  will  timidly  creep  up 
to  him  from  behind.  To  know  him  is  to  believe 
him  wiien  he  says,  "  Him  that  cometh  unto  me 
I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out."  It  looks,  too,  as  if 
she  had  some  idea  of  a  magical  cfiicacy  about 
him  which  would  flow  out  even  from  his 
clothes ;  and  it  is  certain  that  her  faith  liad  as 
yet  done  nothing  to  l)ring  her  into  the  circle 
of  the  Saviour's  influence,  and  that  even  now 
she  was  thinking  to  be  healed  and  tlien  to  slip 
away  unobserved,  in  the  spirit  (tf  the  nine  lepers 
who  did  not  return  to  give  glory  to  God  (LukeW: 
12-19).  On  the  whole,  we  must  estimate  her  faith 
as  tenacious  and  persevering,  and  in  that  sense 
strong,  Init  as  ignorant  and  by  no  means  high 
in  spiritual  quality. 

(3)  The  Effect. — Instantaneous  healing,  in- 
stantly perceived  in  jihysical  sensation. — She 
felt  in  her  body  that  she  was  healed  of 
that  plague.  It  was  not  mere  relief,  but  the 
inward  consciousness  that  the  long-felt  disease 
itself  was  removed.  In  Luke,  "  immediately 
the  flowing  of  her  blood  stanched ;"  in  Mark, 
straightway  the   fountain  of  her  blood 


78 


MARK. 


[Ch.  V. 


30  And  Jesus,  immediately  knowing  in  himself  that 
virtue"  had  gone  out  of  him,  turned  him  about  in  the 
press,  and  said,  Who  touched  my  clothes? 

31  And  his  disciples  said  unto  him,  Thou  seest  the 
multitude  thronging  thee,  and  sayest  thou.  Who 
touched  me? 

32  And  he  looked  round  about  to  see  her  that  had 
done  this  thing. 

33  But  the  woman,  fearing  and  trembling,  knowing 
what  was  done  in  her,  came  and  fell  down  before  him, 
and  told'  him  all  the  truth. 


30  'plague.  And  sti'aightway  Jesus,  perceiving  in  him- 
self that  the  power  procKedinf/  from  him  had  gone 
forth,  turned  him  about  in  the  crowd,  and  said.  Who 

31  touched  my  garments?  And  his  disciples  said  unto 
him.  Thou  seest  the  multitude  thronging  thee,  and 

32  sayest  thou.  Who  touched  me :'    And  he  looked  round 

33  about  to  see  her  that  had  done  this  thing.  But  the 
woman  fearing  and  trembling,  knowing  what  had 
been  done  to  her,  came  and  fell  down  before  him, 


;  Luke  6:  19  ...6  Ps.  .10:  2.- 


was  dried  up — not  merely  the  flow,  but  the 
fountain.  All  this  through  a  mere  touch ! 
Twice  are  similar  results  of  touching,  on  a 
wider  scale,  recorded.  (See  Luke  6  :  19  and 
Matt.  14  :  36.)  In  the  latter  case  healing  en- 
ergy did  seem  to  flow  out  from  him,  almost 
without  his  own  act.  (Compare  Acts  19  :  12.) 
(4)  The  Inquiry  of  Jesus. — Here  we  reach 
questions  that  we  cannot  answer,  about  his 
consciousness. — Jesus  knowing.  "Perceiv- 
ing in  himself  tliat  the  power  proceeding  from 
him  had  gone  forth"  is  the  revisers'  transla- 
tion. Botli  Mark  and  Luke  apparently  repre- 
sent that  the  touch  was  unknown  to  him  except 
through  the  consciousness  of  the  going  forth  of 
the  power  that  was  wont  to  proceed  from  him. 
In  some  way,  concerning  which  conjectures  are 
useless,  the  touch  of  faith  drew  from  him  the 
healing  energy,  and  by  a  sensation  that  must 
remain  mysterious  to  us  he  was  inwardly 
aware  of  its  going  forth. — The  old  translation, 
knowing  in  himself  that  virtue  had  gone 
out  of  him,  was  e.Ktreinely  unfortunate;  many 
a  child  has  understood  it  to  mean  that  he  felt 
that  his  power  was  gone,  filched  away  from  him 
by  tliis  surreptitious  touch,  than  whicli  nothing 
could  be  farther  from  the  truth.— Turned  him 
about  in  the  press  is  peculiar  to  Mark,  a 
reminiscence  of  an  eye-witness. — Another  is 
found  in  the  descriptive  touch  given  after  the 
record  of  his  inquiry.  He  looked  round 
about  to  see  her  that  had  done  this 
thing.  He  was  sincere  ;  lie  was  really  searcliing 
for  the  person.— Who  touched  my  clothes? 
The  answer  of  the  disciples  (stronger  in  Luke, 
"  Thou  seest  the  multitudes  press  thee  and  crush 
thee")  was  perfectly  natural,  but  him  it  did  not 
satisfy,  and  lie  must  still  search  for  the  person. 
AVhy?  Lest  the  superstitious  should  learn  to 
attach  some  magical  power  to  his  garments  or 
should  siqipose  that  he  wished  them  to  do  so. 
Now  that  tins  had  been  done,  it  was  for  the  in- 
terest of  all  that  the  truth  should  come  to  light. 
Moreover,  it  was  not  good  that  imperfect  faith 
should  creeji  away  in  silence  without  being  at 
once  reproved  for  its  timidity  and  taught  the 
Wesson  of  courage.     What  an  impression  of  him 


the  woman  would  have  carried  away  with  her 
if  he  had  not  called  her  out !  So  he  persisted 
in  the  question,  though  "all  denied"  (Luke), 
and  the  remonstrance  of  his  disciples  seemed 
reasonable.  "Some  one  touched  me"  (Luke). 
To  press  him  and  to  touch  him  were  two  differ- 
ent things :  the  pressure  was  external,  coarse, 
lifeless ;  the  touch  was  an  act  of  the  soul,  and 
it  reached  the  soul  of  the  Redeemer.  "  Istipre- 
munt,  ilia  tetigit.  Tangentem  quxro,  nan  premen- 
teniy — "  Those  press,  she  touched.  I  seek  one 
touching,  not  pressing"  {Augustine). 

(5)  The  Confession  of  the  Wom.a.n. — More 
emphatically  and  elaborately  related  by  Luke. 
Mark  mentions  one  motive,  knowing  what 
was  done  in  her,  and  Luke  another,  "see- 
ing that  she  was  not  hid  " — conscious  of  her 
healing,  and  finding  that  slie  was  not  to  be  al- 
lowed to  escape  unseen.  It  is  difficult  to  think 
that  her  own  heart  was  not  impelling  her,  sjiite 
of  all  her  fears,  to  grateful  confession. — She 
came  fearing  and  trembling,  yet  she  came, 
and  fell  down  before  him — not  iktw  behind 
him — and  told  him  all  the  truth.  As  in 
Luke,  she  "declared  in  the  i)rescnce  of  all  the 
people  for  what  cause  she  touched  him,  and 
how  she  was  healed  immediately" — a  confes- 
sion most  painful  for  her  to  make ;  and  yet,  if 
she  afterward  grew  in  grace  and  in  the  know- 
ledge of  Jesus,  can  she  ever  have  wished  tliat 
he  had  permitted  her  to  go  away  without  mak- 
ing it? — Observe  that  her  touch,  thus  confessed 
and  explained,  publicly  fastened  ceremonial  de- 
filement upon  Jesus  for  the  remainder  of  the 
day;  and  if  there  were  "strict  constructionists" 
present,  the  fact  can  scarcely  have  failed  to  be 
noticed.  But  who  should  be  in  the  habit  of 
putting  a  strict  construction  upon  the  law  of 
Moses  if  not  Jairus,  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue? 
It  is  certain  that  Jesus  paid  no  heed  to  the  de- 
filement, and  that  Jairus  also  was  willing  to 
disregard  it.  Whether  he  would  have  been 
willing  but  for  his  grief  and  anxiety,  we  can- 
not tell ;  but  this  was  a  case  in  which  his  own 
heart  clamored  for  the  "  mercy,  and  not  sacri- 
fice," in  which  Jesus  delighted.  Jesus  had 
twice   demanded    it    (mercy   in    preference   to 


Ch.  v.] 


MARK. 


79 


34  And  he  said  unto  her,  Daughter,  tliy  faith"  hath 
made  thee  whole:  go'  in  peace,  and  be  whole  of  thy 
plague. 

;i.5  While  he  yet  spake,  there  came  from  the  ruler 
of  the  synagogues  house  cfrtiiin  which  said,  Thy 
daughter  is  dead:'  why  troublest  thou  the  Master 
any  further'.' 

:(G  As  soon  as  Jesus  heard  the  word  that  was  spoken, 
he  saith  unto  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  Be  not  afraid, 
only*  believe. 


34  and  told  him  all  the  truth.  And  he  said  unto  her. 
Daughter,  thy  faith  hath  'made  thee  whole;  go  in 
peace,  and  be  whole  of  thy  -jilague. 

35  While  he  yet  spake,  they  come  from  the  ruler  of 
the  synagogues  /louse,  saying.  Thy  daughter  is  dead : 

36  why  troublest  thou  the  ^.\la.ster  any  further?  But 
Jesus,  <not  heeding  the  word  spoken,  saith  unto  the 


ich.  10  :  52;  Acts  U  :  9 5  1  Sam.  1  :  17;  20  :  42  ;  2  Kings  5  :  19 c  John  5  :  25  ;  II  :  25 d2  Chron.  20  :  20 ;  John  II 

saved  thee 2  Gr.  scourge 3  Or,  Teacher.... i  Or,  overhearing 


strictness),  as  against  narrow  and  repressive 
interpretations  of  the  law  (see  Matt.  9  :  13 ; 
12  :  7),  and  this  was  a  good  illustration  of 
what  he  meant.  Should  he  give  heed  to  a 
ceremonial  demand  when  a  child  lay  dying 
waiting  for  the  toucli  of  his  hands?  Would 
the  fatlier  of  the  child  have  him  regard  it, 
Phuri.see  thougli  he  wa.s  ?  The  whole  law,  like 
the  8abl)at]i,  was  "  made  for  man,"  and  the  Son 
of  man  would  freely  treat  it  as  man's  servant 
and  forbid  man  to  be  it-s  slave. 

(6)  The  Hkply  of  jEsfs. — This  was  made 
when  she  had  told  him  all  the  tiuth,  con- 
fcs.sc'd  her  faith,  and  acknowledged  her  Healer. — 
Daughter.  So  in  all  three  reports;  here  alone 
i.s  lie  .^aid  to  have  addressed  a  woman  by  this 
title. — Thy  faith  hath  made  thee  whole. 
Addres.sed  al.so  to  Bartiiiueus  (.M»rk  io:52),  to  the 
Samaritan  leper  who  "  returned  to  give  glory  to 
God"  (Luke  17: 19),  aiid  to  the  sinful  woman  in 
Simon's  house  who  "loved  much"  (Luke7:50). 
In  three  cases  (including  the  present)  the  words 
refer  primarily  to  healing;  in  the  fourth,  to 
par(k)n.  It  is  hard  to  think  that  Jesus  meant 
tliem  in  this  ca.se  to  convey  only  the  announce- 
ment of  healing. — Go  in  peace.  Literally, 
"into  peace" — i.  e.  The  future  to  which  thou 
goest  shall  be  peace;  tliou  shalt  be,  and  remain, 
whole,  or  well,  from  thy  plague,  tlie  scourge  or 
torment  that  has  been  twelve  years  upon  thee. 
This  is  a  blessing  for  the  future  as  well  as  for 
the  present.  The  same  phrase  occurs  at  Luke 
7  :  50  (and  there  alone),  where  it  stands  in  con- 
nection with  the  forgiving  of  sins. 

35,  36.  The  episode  ended,  the  original 
story  is  iicre  resumed.  A  joyful  episode  it  was 
to  the  woman  ;  a  surprising  one  to  the  crowd ; 
a  sad  and  perplexing  one  it  must  have  been  to 
Jairus.  The  movement  toward  his  house,  slow 
at  tlie  best  because  of  tlie  crowd,  had  been 
stopped  by  the  act  of  tlie  woman,  and  his  re- 
quest was  in  abeyance  while  her  case  was  at- 
tended to ;  and  yet  his  child  was  dying  when 
he  left  home  to  seek  the  Healer.  Now,  just  as 
the  last  words  to  the  woman  were  spoken,  the 
message  came  that  all  was  over.  The  mes- 
6 


sengers  (or  the  messenger,  as  in  Luke,  "  Tliere 
Cometh  one")  added,  why  troublest  thou 
the  Master  (Teacher)  any  further?  The 
word  rendered  troublest  is  a  strong  word, 
though  not  a  very  frequent  one;  it  is  used 
here  by  both  Mark  and  Luke.  It  means,  first, 
"to  flay"  or  "skin;"  then  "to  rend"  or  "la- 
cerate;" then,  metaphorieall}',  "to  ve.x,  annoy." 
It  is  difficult  to  resist  the  conviction  that  the 
messengers  spoke  ironically,  in  bitter  impatience 
and  vexation  :  "Trouble  the  Teacher  no  more: 
he  has  given  himself  so  much  trouble  already! 
He  was  sent  for  in  a  case  of  life  and  death,  and 
he  set  out  to  come,  with  a  great  crowd  around 
him ;  but  now  we  find  him  standing  in  the 
road  and  talking  witli  a  chronic  invalid  whom 
he  has  allowed  to  intrude  upon  him  and  detain 
him  ;  and  meanwhile  the  child  has  died.  Let 
him  go  back,  now  that  all  is  over.  He  has  let 
the  child  die:  why  trouble  him  any  more?" 
With  this  interpretation  accords  the  language 
of  vei-se  36  in  the  best  text,  where,  instead  of 
akousas,  we  read  parnkoiwias,  a  word  that  occurs 
in  the  New  Testament  only  here  and  at  Matt. 
18  :  17.  There  it  is  found  twice,  and  is  trans- 
lated "  neglect  to  hear,"  or.  by  the  revisers,  "  re- 
fuse to  hear." — It  means  "  to  hear  without  re- 
garding'' or  "not  to  heed."  According  to  this 
reading,  Jesus  heard  what  the  messengers  said  to 
Jairus  of  him,  but  took  no  notice  of  it,  let  it  pass 
unanswered.  The  only  heed  that  he  paid  to  it 
was  in  this — that  he  made  it  the  occasion  of  an 
encouraging  word  to  Jairus.  Be  not  afraid, 
only  believe.  A  most  apjiropriate  word  it 
was  just  when  all  seemed  to  be  lost  and  the 
father  might  be  half  disposed  to  take  the  coun- 
sel of  the  messengers.  But  what  a  word  I  and 
what  an  assumption  !  Be  not  afraid,  al- 
though the  child  is  dead;  only  believe: 
fiiith  in  my  power  is  not  even  yet  in  vain. 
What  calmness,  in  \iew  of  his  own  power  to 
raise  the  dead!  So,  again,  in  the  whole  prep- 
aration for  the  raising  of  Lazarus :  no  tumult 
of  excitement  in  his  soul,  no  questioning  aa 
to  the  result,  and  no  wonder  at  his  own  abil- 
ity to  perform  so  divine  a  work. 


80 


MARK. 


[Ch.  V. 


37  And  he  suffered  no  man  to  follow  him,  save" 
Peter,  and  James,  and  John  the  brother  of  James. 

38  And  lie  coiuetli  to  the  house  of  the  ruler  of  the 
synagogue,  and  seeth  the  tumult,  and  them  that  ivept 
and  wailed  greatly. 

:»  And  when  he  was  come  in,  he  saith  unto  them, 
Why  make  ye  this  ado,  and  weep?  the  dani.sel  is  not 
dead,  but  sleejieth.' 

40  And  they  laughed  him  to  scorn.  But  when  he  had 
put  them  all  out,  lie  taketh  the  father  and  the  mother 
of  the  damsel,  and  them  that  were  with  him,  and 
entereth  in  where  the  damsel  was  lying. 


37  ruler  of  the  synagogue.  Fear  not,  only  believe.  And 
he  suffered  no  man  to  follow  with  him,  save  Peter, 

38 and  James,  and  John  the  brother  of  James.  And 
they  come  to  the  house  of  the  ruler  of  the  syna- 
gogue ;  and  he  beholdeth  a  tumult,  and  many  weep- 

39  ing  and  wailing  greatly.  And  when  he  was  entered 
in,  he  saith  unto  them.  Why  make  ve  a  tumult,  and 

40  weep?  the  child  is  not  dead,  but  sleepeth.  And  they 
laughed  him  to  scorn.  But  he,  having  put  them  all 
forth,  taketh  the  father  of  the  child  and  her  mother 
and  them  that  were  with  him,  and  goeth  in  where 


ach.  9  :  2;  U  :  33 b  John  11  :  11-13. 


37-40.  Mark  speak.s  as  if  tlie  crowd  were 
now  forbidilen  to  go  farther,  and  Peter,  James, 
and  John  alone  were  permitted  to  go  beyond 
where  tlie  niessengei'S  met  the  company.  From 
Lnke  we  would  infer  that  the  separation  was 
not  made  till  the  house  was  reaclied.  Mark's 
more  exact  statement  is  probably  to  be  pre- 
ferred. The  tidings  that  the  child  was  dead 
might  reconcile  the  crowd  to  turning  back. 
It  is  true  that  he  had  raised  the  widow's  son 
from  the  dead  at  Nain  a  few  months  earlier 
(i.uke? :  n-n),  but  the  multitude  would  scarcely 
be  expecting  such  a  work  from  him,  and  may 
have  turned  back  with  some  sympathy  with 
the  impatience  of  the  messengers,  or  at  least 
with  regret  that  Jesus  had  not  arrived  in  time. 
His  special  three  were  taken  with  him ;  this, 
liowever,  is  their  earliest  aj^pearance  as  an  in- 
ner circle  closest  to  him. — It  is  a  little  singular, 
in  view  of  the  short  career  of  James  and  the 
long  history  and  great  services  of  John,  that 
John  is  mentioned  oftenest  in  the  Gospels  as 
the  brother  of  James.  It  looks  as  if,  to  his 
contemporaries,  James  gave  pronuse  of  being 
the  greater  of  the  two,  and  as  if  he  were  ad- 
miringly remembered  after  his  career  was  cut 
short  by  the  sword  of  Herod. — The  house  was 
filled  with  the  noise  and  tumult  that  in  that 
land  follows  a  death  :  "  As  soon  as  death  takes 
place  the  female  members  of  the  household 
and  the  professional  mourning-women  an- 
nounce it  to  the  neighborhood  liy  setting  ti[) 
their  shrill  and  piercing  cry — called  the  talilil 
— which  is  heard  at  s  great  distance  and  above 
every  other  noise,  even  the  din  of  battle,  and 
is  quite  characteristic  of  the  East"  (Van  Len- 
nep,  Bible  Lands,  p.  586).  Allusions  to  the 
lamentation  at  funerals  are  numerous  in  the 
Old  Testament ;  for  example,  Eccles.  12  :  5, 
where  the  professional  mourners  are  men- 
tioned. In  Jer.  9  :  17  the  "mourning-women" 
are  called  in  to  assist  in  giving  utterance  to 
grief;  in  Amos  5  :  16  there  is  a  call  for  those 
who  are  "skilful  of  lamentation  ;"  in  2  Chron. 
35  :  25  the  minstrels  appear,  the  mournful  sing- 
ers who  were  called  in  to  help.   Matthew  speaks 


here  of  the  minstrels — literally,  "flute-players" 
— who  were  in  the  house  of  Jairus.  The  noise 
was,  of  course,  the  first  thing  for  Jesus  to  notice, 
and  he  noticed  it  to  rebuke  it ;  but  it  seems  a 
strange  rebuke.  In  Matthew  he  commands 
the  hired  mourners  away:  "Give  place"  or 
"Withdraw." — In  all  three  he  saj'S  that  the 
child  is  not  dead,  but  is  sleeping.  By  this  he 
meant,  not,  as  some  have  tried  to  make  him 
mean,  "  This  is  not  real  death,  but  only  a  sleep 
that  resembles  it,"  and  not,  "  Death  ought  to 
be  regarded  merely  as  a  sleep,"  but,  "This 
death,  since  I  have  been  summoned  to  help, 
is  only  a  sleep,  out  of  which  the  child  will 
quickly  be  awakened."  Hence  he  could  say, 
Why  make  ye  this  ado  and  weep? — i.e. 
Why  did  you  not  understand  that  I  would  dis- 
pel the  sorrow  ?  After  once  you  had  sent  for 
me,  why  did  you  send  for  the  minstrels  and 
mourners,  as  if  there  were  no  hope?  The 
fame  of  the  work  at  Nain  had  spread  widely, 
and,  though  the  impression  had  been  partly 
effaced,  still  they  ought  to  have  known  that  to 
raise  the  dead  was  not  beyond  his  power. — But 
they  laughed  him  to  scorn.  The  language 
is  identical  in  the  three  reports.  Strange  lan- 
guage it  seems  to  us  for  the  house  of  mourn- 
ing ;  but  such  mourners  as  these  woi;ld  find  it 
easy  to  turn  from  mourning  to  laughter,  and 
Ijack  in  a  moment  again  to  their  wailing. 
Luke  adds,  "  knowing  that  she  was  dead,"  in 
wliich  there  is  a  quiet  confirmation  of  the 
reality  of  her  death,  and  so  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  miracle. — But  when,  etc.  Better 
"  But  he,  having  put  them  all  forth."  The 
he  is  somewhat  emphatic  {autos)  in  the 
Greek,  and  the  word  for  put  out  is  a  strong 
word — the  same  that  is  used  of  his  act  in  driv- 
ing out  the  intruders  to  the  temple  {Markii:i6; 
John  2:15).  Thus  he  enforced  the  command 
that  is  recorded  in  Matthew  and  cleared  the 
house  of  the  mourners,  whose  presence  was  so 
sharp  a  contradiction  of  his  own.  As  he  had 
rejected  the  crowd,  so  he  rejected  the  mourn- 
ers, and  only  the  six  persons  entered  into  the 
chamber  of  death. — Of  the  mother  of  the  child 


Ch.  v.] 


MARK. 


81 


41  And  he  took  the  damsel  by  the  hand,  and  said 
unto  her,  Talilha  ciinii;  which  is,  being  interpreted. 
Damsel,  I  say  unto  thee,  Arise." 

42  And  straightway  tlie  damsel  arose,  and  walked; 
for  she  was  uf  iiii'  mj-  of  twelve  years.  And  they  were 
astonished  with  a  jireat  astonishment. 

4:5  And  ho  charged*  them  slraitly  that  no  man 
should  know  it;  and  commanded  "that  something 
should  be  given  her  to  eat. 


41  the  child  was.  And  taking  the  child  by  the  hand, 
he  ,saith   unto  her,  Talitha  cumi ;  which   is,  being 

42 interpreted.  Damsel,  1  say  unto  thi«.  Arise.  And 
straightway  the  damsel  rose  up,  and  walked  ;  for  she 
was  twelve  years  old.  And  they  were  auiazed  straighl- 

43  way  with  a  great  aiua/.ement.  And  be  charged  lliem 
much  that  no  man  should  know  this:  and  he  com- 
manded that  nomtl/iiiiij  should  be  given  her  to  eat. 


a  .\CU9:  40....6ch.3  :  12;  Matt.  8:4;  12  :  16-18;  Luke  5  :  14. 


we  know  only  that  she  knew  of  her  husband's 
going  to  bring  Je.sus,  that  she  had  witnessed 
the  cliild's  death  during  tlie  absence  of  her 
hu.sband,  and  that  tlie  mourners  had  been 
brought  in  with  her  knowledge,  and  apparent- 
ly with  her  consent.  Thus  she  had  probably 
given  up  hope  of  any  help  from  Jesus.  As  for 
the  fitther,  he  had  been  reassured  by  the  words 
of  Jesus,  and  had  witnessed,  even  while  he  was 
impatiently  waiting,  the  evidence  of  the  full 
jMjwer  of  him  who  had  now  come  with  him. 
The  miracle  on  the  way  must  liave  refreshed 
his  faith,  as  Jesus  certainly  intended  that  it 
should. 

41-43.  Passing  beyond  where  the  minstrels 
were,  the  six  entered  where  the  child  lay  dead. 
The  only  contact,  or  sign  of  any  transference 
of  power,  was  in  the  taking  of  her  hand,  men- 
tioned by  all  three  evangelists.  He  said  unto 
her — Luke,  "  he  called  ;"  Matthew  mentiuns  no 
address — Talitha  cumi.  The  words  are  Ar- 
amaic, rightly  interpreted  by  Mark.  The  I  say 
unto  thee,  however,  is  Mark's  addition,  truly 
representing  the  spirit  of  Jesus'  address.  These 
were  the  very  words  that  he  spoke,  remembered 
and  preserved  by  one  of  the  three  discij>les  who 
heard  them.  Doubtless  the  tone  and  manner 
in  which  they  were  spoken  lingered,  as  well  as 
the  words  themselves,  in  the  mind  of  Peter. 
(For  other  citations  of  his  very  words  by  Mark, 
bringing  in  Aramaic  speech  to  Greek  writing, 
see  Mark  3  :  17 ;  7  :  11,  34  ;  10  :  51 ;  14  :  3G.) 
Mark  traiishites  (aUthd  by  korasion,  a  word  that 
is  not  used  except  familiarly — "little  girl"  or 
"my  cliild."  It  suggests  the  tone  of  tender- 
ness that  Jesus  brought  to  the  scene,  and  tlie 
tendcriu'ss  it.sclf  that  was  dwelling  in  his  heart. 
— The  imperative  word,  er/chr,  may  be  translated 
either  "  Arise"  or  "  Awake."  After  she  is  not 
dead,  but  sleepeth,  it  is  far  more  likely  that 
the  latter  wius  in  the  mind  of  Jesus,  and  that 
he  meant  to  say,  "  My  child,  awake"— an  utter- 
ance far  removed  from  the  formal  Damsel,  I 
say  unto  thee.  Arise,  with  which  we  are 
familiar.  Doubtless  it  was  spoken  quietly  as 
he  took  her  by  the  liand.  We  mistake  if  we 
think  of  power  as  shining  forth  in  his  look  and 
tone  in  that  silent  chamber  of  death.  It  was 
U 


the  most  simple  and  quiet  of  acts  in  its  outward 
form,  and  the  calm  "My  child,  awake!"  came 
to  him,  it  would  seem,  as  naturally  as  it  might 
to  a  mother  whose  child  must  be  called  out  of 
slumber.     All  the  world  lias  a  fondness  for  as- 
sociating power  with  signs  of  power;  but  what 
is  more  sublime  than  this  quiet,  natural,  affec- 
tionate recalling  of  a  departed  si)irit?     AVhere 
else  do  humanity  and   divinity   appear   more 
livingly   as  one? — The  gentle   word   was  suf- 
ficient.     "Her  spirit   returned"    (Luke);    she 
arose  and  walked.     Here  it  is,  at  the  enil,  that 
Mark  tells  the  age  of  the  child,  mentioning  it, 
apparently,  lest  some  reader  should  have  been 
supposing  that  she  was   too   young  to   walk. 
Luke  told  her  age  at  the  very  introduction  of 
the  story  ;    Matthew,  not  at  all — as  far  as   it 
goes,  an  indication  of  the  independence  of  the 
three  reports. — They  were  astonished  with 
a  great  astonishment,  but  with  what  eyes 
did  she  look  upon  her  Re'^torer?   Had  she  ever 
seen  him  before?  and  did  she  know  how  much 
it  meant?    To  Lazarus  the  voice  that  awakened 
him  to  earthly  life  again  was  the  familiar  voice 
of  Jesus,  but  to  the  child  this  may  have  been  a 
stranger's  voice.     Did   those  whom   he  called 
back  from  the  dead  ever  know  each  other  and 
come  into  mutual  confidence  upon  these  awful 
experiences? — He    would  not  have  the  great 
work  talked  of,  and  yet  how  could  it  be  con- 
cealed?    Mark  and  Luke,  who  record  the  in- 
junction of  silence,  do  not  say  that  it  was  dis- 
regarded ;  but  Matthew,  who  does  not  mention 
it,  says  that  the  report  of  this  deed  went  out 
into  all   tliat  land.     Just  so  Luke  says  of  the 
raising  of  the  witlow's  son  ;  and  the  raising  of 
Lazarus  spread  abroad  the  fame  of  Jesus,  lieljjed 
to  secure  for  him  his  regal  entrance  to  the  city 
of  David,  and  gave  his  name  so  divine  a  cha- 
racter that  his  enemies  were  the  more  deter- 
mined (juickly  to  destroy  him. — Not  the  least 
interesting  part  of  the  story  is  the  closing  word. 
He  commanded  that  something  should 
be   given  her  to  eat.     01)serve  in  this,  (1) 
Economy   of   miracle.      Not   witluiut   miracle 
could  the  child  be  restored,  but  when  once  life 
was  re-established  it  must  be  sustaiiic<l  i)y  nat- 
ural means,  like  any  other  liile..    Miraculous 


82 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VI. 


CHAPTER    VI. 


AND  he  went  out  from  thence,  and  came  into  his  own 
country;  and  his  disciples  follow  him. 
2  And"  when  the  sabbath-day  was  come,  he  began  to 
teach  in  tlie  synagogue:  and  many  hearing /u/;t  were 
astonished,  saying,  From'  whence  hath  this  mnn  these 
things?  and  what  wisdom  is  this  which  is  given  unto 
him,  that  even  such  mighty  works  are  wrought  by  his 
hands  ? 


o  Matt.  13  :54,  etc.;  Luke  4:  16, etc b  John  6  :  42.- 


1  And  he  went  out  from  thence;  and  he  cometh 
into  his  own  country  ;  and  his  disciples  follow  him. 

2  And  when  the  sabbath  was  come,  he  began  to  teach 
in  the  synagogue:  and  'many  hearing  him  were 
astonished,  saying,  Whence  hath  this  man  these 
things?  and,  VVhat  is  the  wisdom  that  is  given  unto 
this  man,  and  whai  mean  such  -mighty  works  wrought 


-1  Some  ancieut  autho 


I  iusert  the '2  Gr.  powers. 


power  had  no  2^^'oteges,  none  whom  it  adopted 
to  give  them  permanent  care — a  fact  in  which 
we  see  how  unweakened  by  liuman  weakness 
were  the  hands  in  which  that  power  was  held. 
(2)  The  thoughtfuhiess  of  common  sense.  The 
child  must  have  food,  for  the  life  was  truly  re- 
established, and  its  needs  were  just  the  same  as 
if  no  death  and  no  miracle  had  intervened. 
But  her  friends,  in  their  excitement,  might  for- 
get it;  and  so  the  Healer,  always  thoughtful, 
reminded  them.  (3)  The  calmness  of  one  to 
whom  divine  power  was  simply  natural.  There 
is  no  wonder  in  Jesus  at  what  he  has  done,  no 
excitement  now  that  a  spirit  has  returned  at 
his  call,  no  variation  in  the  perfect  balance  of 
his  mind.  As  there  was  no  excitement  before- 
hand, so  there  is  no  flurry  at  the  moment,  and 
no  pride  afterward.  He  is  just  as  free  and  able 
to  think  of  necessary  practical  details  as  if  this 
had  been  an  ordinary  occurrence  of  common 
life.  

1-6.  JESUS  VISITS  NAZARETH;  AGAIN 
REJECTED  THERE.  Parallel,  Matt.  13 :  54-58. 
—Some,  as  Alford,  regard  Luke  4  :  16-30  also  as 
parallel,  thus  identifying  this  visit  to  Nazareth 
with  the  one  that  Luke  places  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Galila^an  ministry.  Alford's  chief  argu- 
ments are  the  improbability  of  two  visits  so 
similar,  the  im])ossibility  of  our  Lord's  won- 
dering at  the  unbelief  of  his  townsmen  after  it 
had  once  been  so  violently  expressed,  and  the 
fact  that  the  allusion  to  miracles  in  Capernaum 
at  Luke  4  :  23  seems  to  imply  a  greater  number 
of  mighty  works  than  had  been  wrought  there 
at  the  early  time  usually  assumed  for  the  visit. 
He  might  have  added  that  the  tone  of  the  ad- 
dress in  Luke  seems  to  correspond  somewhat 
better  to  tiie  fact  of  growing  unpoinilarity  than 
to  a  time  of  fresh  beginning.  Yet,  on  tlie  whole, 
it  seems  quite  certain  that  there  were  two  visits. 
There  is  some  apparent  difficulty,  it  is  true,  in 
tlie  fact  that  tiie  same  objecticm  was  made  to 
our  Lord  twice,  and  tiie  same  answer  was  given 
on  both  occasions;  but  see  notes  below.  As  to 
the  early  miracles  in  Capernaum,  we  arc  by  no 
means  sure  that  we  have  a  full  record  of  them  ; 
and  as  to  our  Lord's  wondering  at  the  unbelief 


of  the  Nazarenes,  surely  he  might  wonder  that 
all  the  intervening  events  and  a  second  visit  had 
done  nothing  toward  removing  it.  Moreover, 
the  differences  are  considerable.  Jesus  appar- 
ently was  alone  in  the  first  visit,  and  was  ac- 
companied by  his  disciples  in  the  second.  There 
is  no  mention  of  miracles  in  the  first,  and  after 
the  rejection  there  is  no  time  for  them ;  while 
in  the  second  there  is  mention  of  healings, 
though  few,  after  the  rejection.  The  temper 
of  the  people  is  not  the  same :  it  is  violent,  un- 
controllable rage  in  the  first  case,  and  cool  in- 
difference in  the  second.  On  the  whole,  there- 
fore, this  is  to  be  taken  as  a  second  attempt  of 
our  Lord  to  win  the  f;nth  of  his  townsmen.  A 
possible  motive  for  this  visit  has  been  suggested 
in  the  fact  that  he  had  lately  been  obliged  to  re- 
pel his  mother  and  brethren  (chap.  3: 3i-:i5),and 
was  anxious  to  avoid  all  appearance  of  wilful 
sejjaration  from  his  old  friends  and  neighboi-s. 
To  this  it  should  be  added  that  his  tender  and 
faithful  heart  would  certainly  impel  him  to 
make  a  special  effort  to  seek  and  gain  them,  if 
he  had  been  obliged  to  treat  them  with  an  ap- 
pearance of  unfriendliness.  That  the  scene 
with  his  mother  and  brethren  was  quickly  fol- 
lowed by  a  visit  to  those  who  had  known  him 
in  his  youth  and  had  once  rejected  him  was 
profoundly  and  delicately  characteristic  of  our 
Saviour. 

1.  Came  into  his  own  country.  His 
jMirh — his  fatherland,  or  ancestral  home.  The 
same  word  is  used  in  Matthew,  but  neither  Mat- 
thew nor  Mark  tells  what  or  where  the  place 
was.  The  common  u.se  of  the  epithet  "  Naz- 
arene"  is  sufficient,  however,  to  identify  it. 
This  is  Mark's  only  direct  reference  to  his  con- 
nection with  Nazareth,  but  the  reference  proves 
that  he  knew  at  least  something  of  the  facts  re- 
corded by  Matthew  (a :  •«)  and  Luke  (i :  m;  2 :  39), 
and  serves  as  one  of  the  confirmatory  "  cross- 
references"  between  the  Gospels — the  more  im- 
portant, perliaps,  as  it  relates  to  the  period  which 
lies  beyond  the  limits  prescribed  to  Mark  by  tiie 
purpose  of  his  Gospel. 

2,  3.  That  he  began  to  teach  in  the  syn- 
agogue seems  to  indicate  that  his  visit  con- 
tinued— or,  at  least,  was  intended  to  continue — 


Ch.  VI.] 


MARK. 


83 


.'{  Is  not  this  the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary,  the  bro- 
tlit-r  of. lames,"  and  Joses,  and  olMiida.and  .^iuiou  .'  and 
nn-  not  his  sisters  here  with  us?  And  they  wereolleud- 
fd<'  ut  hiiu. 


3 by  his  hands?  Is  not  this  the  carpenter,  the  son  of 
Mary,  and  brother  of  James,  and  Joses,  and  .liidas, 
and  tjimou?  and  are  not  his  sisters  here  with  us? 


tGal.  I  :  19....1  Matt.  II  :  6. 


beyond  a  single  day  of  public  worsbip. — Many 
— or,  as  some  inaiuiscripts  road,  "tliL'  inaiiy," 
tbe  greater  part — hearing  were  astonished. 
— Tbere  is  some  uncertainty  al)ont  tbe  punc- 
tuation and  construction  of  tbe  questions  tbat 
follow.  Tbere  certainly  are  tbree  questions, 
and  tbe  most  natural  construction  seems  to  be, 
not  tbat  of  tbe  revisers,  but,  whence  hath 
this  man  these  things  ?  and  what  wis- 
dom is  this  which  is  given  unto  him? 
and  arc  sucb  mighty  works  wrought  by  his 
hands  ? — t.  e.  can  it  be  tbat  by  bis  bands  are 
performed  tbe  miracles  of  \vbic:b  we  bear?  Tbe 
question  about  tbe  wisdom  follows  upon  bis 
teacbing  in  tbeir  presence.  On  his  other  visit 
"all  bare  him  witness,  and  wondered  at  tbe 
words  of  grace  tbat  jiroceedcd  out  of  his 
moutb."  So  in  Capernaum  (chap,  i :  27)  his  teach- 
ing made  an  impression  tbat  was  not  eclipsed 
even  by  a  present  miracle.  In  Nazareth,  bow- 
ever,  there  were  no  miracles  before  tbe  teacli- 
ing,  and  tbe  allusion  was  to  those  tbat  were 
reported  from  elsewhere,  especially,  no  donbt, 
tbe  recent  works  in  Capernaum,  as  tbe  raising 
of  Jairus's  daughter. — The  question,  "Are  sucb 
mighty  works  wrought  by  bis  bands?"  is  per- 
fectly in  accord  with  tbe  in(]uiry  tbat  follows  it. 
Is  not  this  the  carpenter?  Equally  so  is  tbe 
(juestion  about  bis  wisdom.  The  carpenter 
was  of  bumble  social  position  and  of  limited 
opportunities  for  education  (compare  John  7  : 
15:  "How  knowetb  this  man  lettei-s,  having 
never  learned?''),  and  tbat  bis  should  be  the 
hands  by  which  tbe  mighty  works  were  per- 
formed was  in  tbeir  sight  almost  incredible. — 
Observe  tbat  on  tbe  former  occasion  bis  words 
were  "  words  of  grace,"  and  they  wondered ; 
now  they  were  words  of  "  wisdom,"  and  they 
stumbled.  This  was  probably  an  announce- 
ment of  tbe  principles  of  bis  kingdom,  and, 
though  they  admired,  tboy  bad  no  heart  for 
the  doctrine. — The  carpenter.  Here  alone 
is  Jesus  so  called;  Matthew,  "the  carpenter's 
son."  It  wius  the  universal  custom  for  the. lews 
to  teach  trades  to  tbeir  sons.  (Compare  Acts 
18  :  3.)  From  this  word  we  infer  tbat  Joseph 
taught  Jesus  bis  own  trade  and  Jesus  worked 
with  him  as  a  carjienter  in  his  shop  at  Naz- 
areth. Justin  Martyr  says  tbat  in  bis  time  (tbe 
second  century)  articles  said  to  have  been  made 
by  his  hands,  such  as  rakes  and  barrows,  were 
preserved  and  were  in  demand  as  sacred  relics. 


In  a  country  village  like  Nazareth  a  carpenter 
would  be  busied  mainly  with  work  of  no  great 
magnitude — somewhat  with  tbe  con.struction 
of  bouses,  but  quite  as  much  with  tbe  making 
of  household  imi)leiuents  and  utensils.  Not 
unlikely,  tbe  bushel  and  tbe  lampstand  and 
tlie  couch  and  tbe  plough  of  which  be  spoke 
liad  been  fashioned  by  bis  bands,  aiul  periiaps 
to  his  thoughts  they  bad  suggested,  while  he 
was  working,  some  of  tbe  illu.strative  uses  that 
be  made  of  them.  Tbere  is  evidence  in  the 
manu.^cripts  and  in  Christian  literature  that 
this  name,  "the  carpenter,"  and  even  "the 
carpenter's  son,"  came  to  be  regarded  as  some- 
what of  a  reproach  ;  but  how  could  his  friends 
have  more  thoroughly  misunderstood  his  spirit? 
In  his  full  and  true  acceptance  of  tbe  lot  of  hu- 
manity, be  accepted  bumble  and  regular  labor 
as  a  part  of  bis  life.  We  cannot  fail  to  see  that 
be  thus  put  a  divine  honor  upon  labor.  The 
popular  imi)ression  tbat  tbe  necessity  for  labor 
is  a  part  of  tbe  penalty  of  sin  is  directly  con- 
tradicted by  bis  example.  Among  tbe  many 
words  about  the  life  of  our  Lord  for  which  we 
have  reason  to  be  deeply  thankful,  not  tbe  least 
is  this  word,  "  Is  not  this  tbe  carpenter?" — The 
son  of  Mary.  Tbe  absence  of  the  name  of 
.losepb  lias  always  been  taken  to  sliow  that 
Mary  was  now  known  apart  from  lier  husband 
— i.  e.  as  a  widow.  Joseph  is  mentioned  in  the 
record  of  tbe  previous  visit :  "  Is  not  this  Joseph's 
son?"  It  would  be  too  much  to  infer  tbat  lie 
had  died  between  tbe  two  visits,  but  it  does 
seem  i)robable  tbat  bodied  not  long  before  the 
first,  if  not  after  it. — The  brother  of  James, 
and  Joses,  and  of  Juda.  and  Simon  ?  (See 
note  on  chap.  3  :  ill.)  The  same  names  in 
Matthew  as  here;  they  are  common  Hebrew 
names. — His  sisters.  Of  whom  no  names 
are  given,  and  of  whose  history  we  know  noth- 
ing. Tbe  only  bint  as  to  their  number  is  found 
in  tbe  word  "all."  used  by  Matthew:  "Are  not 
bis  sisters  all  with  us?"  The  word  indicates 
tbat  tbey  numliered  tbree  or  four,  at  least. — 
And  they  were  offended  at — or  in — him. 
Tbe  same  phrase  as  at  buke  7  :  '2.'}.  Tiiey  found 
sonuHliing  in  him  tbat  occasioned  stumbling, 
cause<l  them  to  hesitate,  and  finally  to  refuse 
when  asked  to  believe  in  liim.  "  Bles.sed  is  he" 
tbat  does  not  so;  but  this  blessedness  was  not 
for  them. 
4.  The  complaint  tbat  was  made  against  hiiu 


84 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VI. 


4  But  Jesus  said  unto  them,"  A  prophet  is  not  with- 
out honor,  but  in  his  own  country,  and  among  liis 
own  kin,  and  in  his  own  house. 

5  And'  he  could  there  do  no  mighty  work,  save  that 
he  hud  his  hands  upon  a  lew  sick  tolk,and  healed  <//>-?». 

6  And  he  marvelled'  because  of  their  unbelief.  And'' 
he  went  round  about  the  villages,  teaching. 


4  And  they  were  'offended  in  him.  And  Jesus  said 
unto  them,  A  prophet  is  not  without  honor,  save 
in  his  own  country,  and  among  his  own  kin,  and  in 

5  his  own  house.  And  he  could  there  do  no -mighty 
work,  save  that  he  laid  his  hands  upon  a  lew  sick 

Cfolk,aud  healed  them.  And  he  marvelled  because 
of  theii'  unbelief. 

And  he  went  round  about  the  villages  teaching. 


oMatt.  13  :  57  ;  John  4  :  44 b  ch.  9  :  23;  Gen.  19  :  22 c  Isa.  59  :  16;  Jer.  2:11 d  Matt.  9:36;  Luke  13  :  22:  Acts  10  :  38.- 

caused  to  stumble 2  Gr.  power. 


was  precisely  the  same  as  at  his  former  visit : 
his  old  neighbors  had  listened  to  him  more 
patiently,  but  had  nothing  different  to  say. 
After  all  that  had  passed,  they  were  still  reject- 
ing him  because  they  had  known  him  so  well 
and  in  circumstances  so  humble;  they  were 
persistently  judging  "according  to  the  appear- 
ance." Tlierefore,  as  they  had  nothing  new  to 
say,  neither  liad  he :  what  was  true  before  was 
true  now — A  prophet  is  not  without  honor, 
but  in  his  own  country,  and  among  his 
own  kin,  and  in  his  own  house  :  as  much 
as  to  say,  "This  is  my  hardest  held;  the  strong- 
est prejudices  meet  me  here.  I  told  you  so 
before,  and  I  tell  you  so  again.  This  is  the 
common  lot  of  prophets  and  teachers — to  be 
received  abroad,  but  dishonored  at  home." 
Compare  the  experience  of  Jeremiah  with  the 
men  of  his  native  Anathoth  (jer.  11:21). — The 
words  among  his  own  kin  are  peculiar  to 
Mark's  report;  they  are  the  words  that  tell 
what  must  have  cut  most  sharply  to  his  loving 
heart..  A  constant  pain  it  must  have  been  that 
his  "bretliren"  believed  not  on  him;  and  if 
there  was  any  town  in  which  he  would  most 
have  delighted  to  be  welcomed  in  his  mission, 
that  town  surely  was  Nazareth.  But  "  he  came 
vinto  Iiis  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not" 
(John  1:11).  Similar  was  the  experience  of  his 
apostles,  especially  of  Paul,  in  learning  that 
the  Jews,  the  "own,"  the  kinsfolk,  of  the  Sav- 
iour, would  not  receive  him,  while  the  Gen- 
tiles, who  were  strangers  from  the  covenants 
of  promise,  were  far  more  ready  to  believe. 

5,  6.  Mark  alone  inserts  the  could;  but 
Matthew  distinctly  attributes  the  abstinence 
from  miraculous  works  to  the  unbelief  of  the 
people.  Mark  notes  the  few  e.\ceptions  that 
were  possil)lc— the  healing  of  a  few  sick  in 
whom,  or  in  tlieir  friends,  he  may  liave  dis- 
cerned another  spirit.  The  inability  to  per- 
form mighty  works  tliere  must  not  be  con- 
ceived of  as  if  there  were  a  kind  of  outward 
restraint  upon  him,  a  physical  repression  of 
his  power.  The  inability  was  inward  and 
moral.  It  is  true  that  unbelief  or  non-belief 
did  not  always  form  a  hindrance  to  Ids  mirac- 
ulous working;  see  the  case  of  the  demoniacs 


in  the  land  of  the  Gergesenes,  where  there  was 
no  faith,  and  that  of  the  paralytic  (chap.  2: 1-12), 
where  there  was  an  unfriendly  presence,  as 
there  was,  and  sometimes  still  more  terribly, 
on  many  other  occasions  But  the  stolid  and 
persistent  indifference  of  the  Nazarenes  made  a 
moral  atmosphere  in  which  he  found  it  diffi- 
cult and  practically  impossible  to  jnit  forth  his 
divine  energy.  The  plain  implication  is  that 
he  would  gladly  have  let  his  power  flow  out 
freely,  but  was  morally  shut  up  from  gracious 
giving.  Even  he,  then,  was  sometimes  under 
constraint  and  unable  to  do  as  he  would,  be- 
cause of  the  spiritual  atmosphere  around  him 
— a  point  at  which  we  find  him  unexpectedly 
in  sympathy  with  the  experiences  of  his  ser- 
vants. It  was  by  a  real  entering  to  human 
life  that  he  became  a  carpenter;  but  is  there 
not  a  deeper  identification  of  himself  with 
human  conditions  in  this,  that  "  he  could  do 
no  mighty  work  there,  because  of  their  un- 
belief"?— In  his  wonder  at  the  unbelief  we 
have  another  glimpse  of  the  resemblance  of 
his  thoughts  to  ours.  "We  do  not  ordinarily 
think  of  wonder  as  an  act  or  attitude  of  the 
divine  mind;  but  Jesus  marvelled  because 
of  their  unbelief,  just  as  he  had  already 
"marvelled"  at  the  faith  of  the  centurion 
(Luke  7: 9).  Woudcrful  was  the  stupidity  and 
pei-sistence  of  the  unbelief  of  these  Nazarenes, 
and  he  truly  wondered.  Wonderful  was  the 
faith  of  the  Roman,  comparatively  uniniv- 
ileged,  yet  surpassing  Israel,  and  he  truly 
wondered.  Natural  and  spontaneous  were  his 
thoughts;  not,  as  men  have  sometimes  sup- 
posed they  must  believe,  mechanical  and  un- 
like those  of  other  thinking  beings. 

7-13.  JESITS  INSTRUCTS  AND  SENDS 
FORTH  HIS  AROSTLES.  ParoUeh,  Matt.  9  : 
35-10  :  1 ;  and  10  :  5-16 ;  Luke  9:1-6. 

6.  This  undefined  tour  among  the  villages 
in  Galilee  is  mentioned  with  more  detail  in 
Matt.  9  :  35,  but  its  extent  is  there  left  as  un- 
defined as  here,  and  no  incidents  of  his  teach- 
ing or  contact  with  the  people  liave  been  pre- 
served. His  feeling,  however,  in  view  of  the 
state  in  which  he  found  the  people,  is  recorded 
by  Matthew,  and  his  pity  for  the  spiritual  con- 


Ch.  VI.] 


MARK. 


85 


7  f  And"  he  called  unto  hirti  the  twelve,  and  began  to 
send  theiu  forth  by  two  and  two,  and  gave  them  power 
over  unclean  spirits; 

S  And  commanded  thera  that  they  should  take  noth- 
ing for  l/ifir  journey,  save  a  stall'  only  ;  no  scrip,  no 
bread,  no  money  in  their  purse: 

y  But  be  shod*  with  sandals:"  and  not  put  on  two 
coats. 


7  And  he  called  unto  him  the  twelve,  and  began  to 
send  them  forth  by  two  and  two;  and  he  gave  them 

8 authority  over  the  unclean  spirits;  and  he  charged 
them  that  they  should  take  nothing  for //ie/c  journey, 
save  a  staff  only  ;  no  bread,  no  wallet,  no  'money  in 

9  their '''purse;  but  ^o  yo  shod  with  sandals:  &n<l,  said 


ach.  3  :  13,  etc.;  Matt.  10  :  1,  etc. ;  Luke  9  :  1,  etc.  ;  10:  3,  etc b  Eph.  6  :  15 c  Acts  12  : 


-1  Or.  brats 2  Gr.  girdle. 


dition  in  which  they  were  is  assigned  as  the 
reason  for  the  act  that  follows. 

7.  He  called  unto  him  the  twelve — the 
place  is  unknown — and  began  to  send  them 

forth.  Tliis  had  been  the  second  clause  in 
their  original  coinniission,  "  That  they  might 
be  with  him,  and  that  he  might  send  them 
forth  to  preach  and  to  have  authority  to  cast 
out  demons ;"  and  now  he  began  to  assign 
them  work  under  it.  This  was  their  first  mis- 
sion. Matthew  chooses  this  as  the  time  for 
recording  their  names ;  Mark  and  Luke  have 
recorded  them  before,  in  connection  with  their 
appointment.  —  He  sent  them  by  two  and 
two,  according  to  the  sound  practical  prin- 
ciple that  experience  has  always  been  teach- 
ing. (See  Eccles.  4  :  8-12 — a  passage  that  one 
may  almost  think  Jesus  cited  to  the  twelve  in 
the  course  of  his  preparations  for  their  mis- 
sion.) Each  was  thus  compelled  to  be  a  helper 
to  another,  while  each  was  also  permitted  to 
lean  upon  another's  help.  As  for  the  division 
of  the  twelve  into  pairs,  of  course  we  cannot 
tell  positively  how  it  was  done;  but  there  is 
every  reason  to  suppose  that  the  division  that 
is  elsewhere  given  was  observed.  The  pairs 
were  probably  Peter  and  Andrew,  brothers ; 
James  and  John,  brothers;  Philip  and  Bar- 
tholomew, friends  before  they  met  Jesus ;  Mat- 
thew and  Thomas,  probably  twin-brothers ; 
James,  the  son  of  Alphteus,  and  "Judas  of 
James,"  of  whose  relation  nothing  very  certain 
can  be  said ;  and  Simon  tlie  Zealot  and  Judas 
Iscariot.  May  there  possibly  have  been  some- 
thing in  the  presence  of  the  Zealot  at  his  side 
from  which  the  evil  heart  of  Judas  drew  nour- 
ishment for  a  worldly  ideal  of  the  Messiah  and 
discontent  with  Jesus'.'  The  six  pairs  prob- 
ably went  out  in  as  many  different  directions, 
very  likely  not  meeting  again  until  their  mis- 
sion was  fully  accomplished. — Their  preach- 
ing was  to  be  enforced  by  miracles,  which  their 
Master  now  gave  them  authority  to  perform  in 
liis  name.  Mark  mentions  only  power  over 
unclean  spirits;  Luke  adds  "diseases;"  Mat- 
thew, "  all  manner  of  sickness  and  all  manner 
of  disease,"  and  he  even  records  the  command, 
"  Raise  the  dead."  He  gave  them  full  range  in 
the  work  of  healing ;    but  here  alone  during 


his  ministry  are   they  said  actually   to  have 
healed. 

8-11.  The  needful  instructions  for  the  jour- 
ney and  the  work  are  given  by  Mark  and  Luke 
only  in  a  very  brief  and  compendious  form ;  by 
Matthew  more  fully,  though  it  is  not  certain 
that  the  whole  of  what  is  recorded  in  his  tenth 
chapter  was  spoken  at  this  time.  Verses  8,  9 
tell  of  the  preparation  they  were  to  make  for 
the  journey,  and  verses  10,  11  of  their  conduct 
in  the  places  that  they  might  visit.  As  for 
preparation,  the  point  of  the  commands  is  that 
they  were  to  go  as  they  were,  not  waiting  to 
make  themselves  ready.  For  such  a  journey 
Orientals  in  the  common  walks  of  life  would 
require  far  less  jireparation  than  men  of  West- 
ern habits  would  feel  to  be  necessary.  Noth- 
ing for  their  journey,  save  a  stafl'  only. 
In  Matthew  and  Luke  it  is  "  no  staff" — i.  e. 
they  were  not  to  go  to  the  pains  of  getting  one 


if  not  supplied  already  ;  they  were  not  to  trou- 
ble themselves  about  preparation,  even  so  little 
as  that. — No  bread.  They  were  to  depend 
upon  finding  food  as  they  went. — No  scrip, 
or  wallet  or  small  bag.  The  word  is  used  in 
Early  English  of  the  bag  that  a  traveller  car- 
ried. It  occurs  at  1  Sam.  17  :  40,  where  it  re- 
fers to  the  shepherd's  bag  that  David  had. — No 
money — literally,  brass — in  their  purse,  or 
girdle,  the  folds  or  twists  of  the  girdle  being 
the  receptacle  for  the  traveller's  money. — Shod 
with  sandals.  The  plain,  ordinary  foot-gear, 
such  as  plain  people  wore.  In  Matthew  it  is 
"  no  shoes ;"  but  there  does  not  seem  to  be  a 
contrast  intended  between  shoes  and  sandals, 
as  if  sandals  were  permitted  and  shoes  for- 
bidden. There  is  no  distinction  between  the 
words,  and  the  phrase  "  no  shoes,"  in  Mat- 
thew, is  governed  by  the  verb  "get:"   they 


86 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VI. 


10  And  he  said  unto  tlieui,  In  what  place  soever  ye 
enter  into  an  house,  there  abide  till  ye  depart  from 
that  place. 

11  And  whosoever  shall  not  receive  you,  nor  hear 
you,  when  ye  depart  thence,  shake"  oil'  the  dust  under 
your  feet  for  a  testimony  against  them.  Verily  1  say 
unto  you,  It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  Sodom  and  t>o- 
morrah  in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  that  city. 

12  And  they  went  out,  and  preached  that  men  should 
repent.* 

13  And  they  cast  out  many=  devils,  and  anointed  with 
oiW  many  that  were  sick,  and  healed  thtm. 


\Qhe,  put  not  on  two  coats.  And  he  said  unto  them. 
Wheresoever  ye  enter  into  a  house,  there  abide  till 

11  ye  depart  thence.  And  whatsoever  place  sliall  not 
receive  you,  and  they  hear  you  not,  as  ye  go  forth 
thence,  shake  ottthe  dust  that  is  under  your  feet  for 

12a  testimony  unto  them.     And  they  went  out,  and 

13  preached  that  men  should  repent.  And  they  cast 
out  many  demons,  and  anointed  with  oil  many  that 
were  sick,  and  healed  them. 


a  Neh.  5  :  13;  Acts  13  :  51 h  Luke  24  :  47  ;  Acts  2  :  38;  3  :  19 c  Luke  10  :  17 d  James  5  :  14. 


were  forbidden  to  procure  anytliing  more  than 
they  already  had. — Not  put  on  two  coats. 
Strictly,  tunics  or  inner  coats.  They  were  not 
to  encumber  themselves  with  anything  super- 
fluous, or  even  with  a  change  of  clothing. 
Their  habits  would  make  this  a  far  more  nat- 
ural arrangement  to  them  than  it  would  be  to 
us.  Their  mission  would  be  mainly  to  the 
poor,  and  in  style  adapted  to  their  work  they 
mu.st  go.  They  were  to  go,  too,  in  haste  and 
for  actual  work,  and  therefore  they  must  go 
unencumbered. — The  point  of  the  command 
in  verse  10  is,  "  Accept  hospitality  when  it  is 
offered  in  good  faith,  and  do  not  be  changing 
your  quarters  in  search  of  greater  convenience 
or  comfort.  You  will  not  be  long  in  a  place ; 
do  not  waste  your  working-time  in  trying  to 
accommodate  yourselves."  There  might  be 
temptation  to  do  exactly  that,  and  to  degrade 
their  mission  besides,  if  they  were  to  hold 
themselves  open  to  invitations  from  wealthier 
men  who  might  receive  their  word.  —  And 
whosoever  shall  not  receive  you.  The 
best  text  refers,  not  to  person,  but  place.  This 
open  denunciation  was  for  towns  where  both 
message  and  messengers  should  be  rejected. 
See  Luke  9  :  52-56  for  a  case  in  point.  That, 
however,  was  a  Samaritan  village,  less  priv- 
ileged than  the  Jewish,  and  therefore  less  se- 
verely condemned. — Shake  off  the  dust  un- 
der your  feet.  A  symbolic  act  of  renun- 
ciation such  as  Jews  were  accustomed  to  per- 
form on  crossing  the  border  in  returning  from 
a  Gentile  country  into  their  own.  Thus  the 
rejecters  of  the  apostles'  message  were  to  be 
treated  as  Gentiles  —  a  very  fitting  symbol, 
since  this  was  the  message  of  the  true  King 
of  Israel,  and  they  who  should  disregard  it 
would  not  be  of  the  true  Israel. — The  shaking 
off  of  the  dust  is  to  be  for  a  testimony,  not 
against  them,  but  "unto  them,"  although  it 
might  be  practically  a  testimony  against  them. 
It  is  a  testimony  to  them  (jf  the  greatness  of 
him  whom  they  have  rejected,  and  of  the  ter- 
rible nature  of  their  deed.  It  is  even  a  part 
of  the  preaching :  it  is  one  way  of  announcing 


the  truth  of  Christ ;  and  if  it  should  lead  the 
rejecters  to  repentance,  after  all,  its  highest 
purpose  would  be  accomplished.  (For  illus- 
trations, see  Acts  13  :  51  and  18  :  6.) — The  lat- 
ter half  of  verse  11,  comparing  the  guilt  and 
doom  of  such  a  city  with  the  guilt  and  doom 
of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  stands  unquestioned 
in  Matthew,  but  forms  no  part  of  the  best  text 
in  Mark. 

12,  13.  Only  one  word  tells  of  the  substance 
of  the  apostles'  preaching  in  this  tour :  they 
preached  that  men  should  repent.  Doubt- 
less the  main  point  of  their  message  was  dic- 
tated to  them  by  their  Master.  Observe  that 
this  Avas  not  merely  the  proclamation  of  the 
Christ,  but  rather  the  announcement  of  the 
dutj'  of  men  in  view  of  his  coming.  They  took 
up  the  preaching  of  John,  and  of  Jesus  him- 
self; undoubtedly  they  said,  "  Repent,  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand." — Under  their 
commission  to  cast  out  demons  they  did  great 
and  beneficent  work  and  left  many  grateful. 
Mark  alone  mentions  their  healing  of  diseases. 
They  anointed  with  oil ;  and  this  custom 
appears  again  in  Scripture  only  in  James  5  :  14, 
where  it  is  evidently  in  use — at  least,  among 
some  Hebrew  Christians.  Jesus  himself  some- 
times employed  physical  media  in  healing,  as 
in  Mark  7  :  33 ;  8  :  23 ;  John  9  :  6,  7 ;  but  these 
were  apparently  excejjtional  cases  with  him. 
His  nairacles  Avere  free  acts  of  liis  personality, 
which  usually  rejected  all  media.  (Compare  1 
Kings  17  :  21,  22  and  2  Kings  4  :  29-35  for  scenes 
that  illustrate  the  superiority  of  his  W(irking.) 
But  when  he  did  use  physical  media  we  never 
hear  of  his  using  oil.  In  that  age  oil  was  re- 
garded as  a  curative  agent ;  jierhaps  that  is  the 
very  reason  why  the  Lord  himself  did  not  em- 
ploy it.  In  the  hands  of  the  apostles  when 
they  were  healing  the  use  of  it  would  be  sym- 
bolic of  their  belief  in  the  use  of  natural  means 
of  healing,  in  connection  with  the  prayer  of 
faith  and  full  reliance  upon  the  mighty  Name. 
It  was  a  suitable  symbol  for  discijiles  in  their 
humble  consciousness  of  using  only  a  derived 
power,  but  less  suitable  to  the  Lord. — As  to  the 


Ch.  VI.] 


MARK. 


87 


14  And"  king  Herod  lie.ard  of  him ;  (for  his  name  was 
spread  abroad  "ij  and  he  said,  That  John  tlie  Baptist  was 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  therefore  mighty  works  do 
shew  fortli  tliemselves  in  him. 

15  Others''  said,  Tliat  it  is  Klias.  And  others  said, 
That  it  is  a  prophet,  or  as  one  of  the  i)rophets. 

Itj  But  when  Herod  heard  Ihereiif,  he  said.  It  is  John, 
whom  1  beheaded:  he  is  risen  froiu  the  dead. 


14  And  king  Herod  heard  Ihereaf;  for  liis  name  had 
become  known:  and  'lie  said,  .lohn  -the  Haptist  is 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  therefore  do  these  powers 

15  work  in  him.  But  others  said,  It  is  Klijah.  And 
otliers  said,  H  is  a  prophet,  ni'ii  as  one  of  the  proph- 

IGets.    But  Herod,  when  he  heard  //*<.•/>  o/,  said,  John, 


a  Matt.  1«:1,  etc. ;  Luke  9  :  7,  etc 6ch.8:28;  Matt. 16:14.- 


-1  Some  ancient  authorities  read  thty 2  Gr.  tA«  Baptizer. 


length  and  extent  of  tliis  tour  it  is  impossible 
to  be  certain.  Wieseler  and  Ellicott  maintain 
that  it  lasted  only  a  day  or  two  ;  but  most  au- 
thorities insist  that  it  must  have  been  longer — 
probably  some  weeks,  which  certainly  seems 
most  likely.  According  to  Matt.  11  :  1,  Jesus 
himself,  as  soon  as  he  had  dismissed  his  dis- 
ciples to  their  work,  departed  himself,  alone, 
"  to  teach  and  preach  in  their  cities."  Thus 
for  the  time  he  broke  up  the  one  company  into 
seven — an  act  which  cannot  fail  to  be  recog- 
nized as  an  aggressive  movement  toward  the- 
more  rapid  gaining  of  converts.  He  had  lately 
entrusted  truth  especially  to  his  disciples  in  the 
form  of  parables,  and  he  would  not  fail  to  give 
them  an  early  opportunity  to  set  the  lamp  on 
the  lam])stand  and  make  manifest  what  in  their 
experience  he  had  hidden  (chap.  4 :  21,  22).  He 
liad  lately  turned  away,  in  a  certain  sense,  from 
the  people,  scarcely  expecting  to  be  understood 
by  them,  to  speak  more  liopefully  to  his  dis- 
ciples ;  yet  he  would  not  so  leave  the  i)eople, 
but  would  make  sure  that  the  word  "  Repent  " 
was  spoken  again  in  their  ears,  and  by  men  j 
whom  some  of  them  might  possibly  regard 
when  they  would  not  attend  to  him.  With 
wliat  manner  of  thoughts  did  he  follow  the 
twelve  while  they  were  absent  from  him? 

14-29.  HEROD  BEIJEVES  JESUS  TO  BE 
JOHN  THE  BAPTIST,  WHOM  HE  BE- 
HEADED; STORY  OF  THE  BAPTIST'S 
DEATH.  Parallels,  Matt.  14  :  1-12;  Luke  3  : 
19,  20  ;  9  :  7-9. 

14-lG.  This  Herod  is  Herod  Antipas,  the 
son  of  Herod  the  Great  and  Malthace,  a  Sa- 
maritiin  woman.  After  the  father's  death  the 
kingdom  that  he  had  founded  was  divided 
among  the  sons,  and  Antipas  received  Galilee 
and  Periea  as  his  portion.  He  bore  the  name 
of  "  tetrarch  "  as  ruler  of  a  fourth  part  of  the 
Roman  province  of  Syria ;  and  the  title  king 
was  a  pojiular  one — a  substitute  for  "  tetrarch." 
He  was  one  of  the  tributary  sovereigns  to  whom 
Rome  could  well  afford  to  grant  some  gratifica- 
tion of  their  vanity.  His  reign  covered  almost 
the  whole  lifetime  of  our  Loi-d,  and  continued 
beyond  it,  extending  from  b.  c.  4  to  a.  d.  39. — 
It  is  not  positively  affirmed  that  Herod  heard 
of  Jesus  now  for  the  first  time,  though  it  is 


plainly  implied  that  he  had  not  known  much 
of  him,  and  now  obtained  more  infcjrmation 
than  he  had  had  before.  That  he  knew  little 
of  Jesus  is  notliing  strange,  for  he  was  often 
absent  from  Galilee ;  and,  what  is  more  im- 
portant, he  was  profoundly  indifferent  to  all 
such  matters.  As  to  the  means  by  which  he 
now  heard  more  of  Jesus,  it  is  sufficient  to  re- 
member the  mission  of  the  apt)stles  through 
Galilee  with  the  power  of  healing :  this  would 
cause  the  name  of  Jesus  to  be  spread  abroad^ 
or  to  "  become  known  "  where  it  had  not  been 
known  before,  and  his  fame  might  easily  thus 
reach  Herod. — The  word  said,  occurring  four 
times  in  these  three  verses',  is  uniformly  in  the 
imperfect  tense,  indicating  that  it  refers,  not  to 
what  Herod  and  the  others  said  at  some  single 
moment,  but  to  what  they  "  were  saying"  when 
Jesus  was  spoken  of  Herod's  guilty  conscience 
assented  to  the  opinion  of  some  who  said  that 
John  the  Baptist  had  risen  from  the  dead  (Luke), 
but  he  was  greatly  "  |)erplexed."  Others  were 
saying  that  this  was  Elijah,  who  was  expected 
to  appear,  in  accordance  with  a  literal  interpre- 
tation of  Mai.  4  :  5,  6 ;  others,  it  is  a  prophet, 
or — more  correctly  "  even  " — as  one  of  the 
prophets— t.  e.  he  is  a  new  prophet  in  whom 
the  long-broken  line  of  prophecy  has  been  re- 
sumed. In  Luke  is  recorded  the  further  guess 
that  "  one  of  the  old  prophets  is  risen  again  " — 
not  Elijah  or  some  special  messenger,  but  an 
ordinary  jjrophet  returned. — The  theory  that 
Jesus  was  John  returned  from  the  dead  is  given 
first  as  Herod's  own  theory,  and  is  reiterated, 
after  the  others  have  been  enumerated,  in  tlie 
literal  and  intenser  form,  whom  I  beheaded, 
"John,  this  one  has  risen."  Both  pronouns.  I 
and  he,  or  "this  one,"  are  strongly  emphatic, 
and  Herod's  saying  is  the  confession  of  guilt  and 
fear.  It  was  when  Herod  heard  the  other  the- 
ories that  hesaid  this;  this  was  his  unvaryingan- 
swer  to  them  all.  We  have  no  positive  evidence 
that  Herod  was  in  belief  a  Sadilucee,  though  it  is 
certain  thiit  his  affiliations  were  with  them  nither 
than  with  the  Phari.sees.  His  character  would  be 
most  at  home  among  those  who  "  say  that  there 
is  no  resurrection,  neither  angel  nor  s])irit " 
(Acts  23: 8),  and  probably,  if  he  was  sincere  in 
any  belief  on  such  subjects,  he  was  sincere  in 


MARK 


[Ch.  VI. 


17  For  Herod  himself  had  sent  forth,  and  laid  hold 
upon  John,  and  bound  him  in  prison,  for  Herodias' 
sake,  his  brother  Philip's  wife:  for  he  had  married  her. 

18  For  John  had  said  unto  Herod,  It  is  not  lawful" 
for  thee  to  have  thy  brother's  wife. 

19  Therefore  Herodias  had  a  quarrel  against  him, 
and  would  have  killed  him  ;  but  she  could  not. 

20  For  Herod  feared*  John,  knowing  that  he  was  a 
just  man  and  an  holy,  and  observed  him;  and  when 
he  heard  him,  he  did  many  things,  and  heard  him 
gladly. 


17  whom  I  beheaded,  he  is  risen.  For  Herod  himself 
had  sent  forth  and  laid  hold  upon  John,  and  bound 
him  in  prison  for  the  sake  of  Herodias,  his  brother 

18  Philip's  wife:  for  he  had  married  her.  For  John 
said  unto  Herod,  It  is  not  lawful  for  thee  to  have 

19  thy  brother's  wife.    And  Herodias  set  herself  against 

20  hini,  and  desired  to  kill  him ;  and  she  could  not;  for 
Herod  feared  John,  knowing  that  he  was  a  righteous 
man  and  a  holy,  and  kept  him  .safe.  And  when  he 
heard  him,  he  'was  much  perplexed;  and  he  heard 


a  Lev.  18  :  16.... i  Ex.  11  :  3  ;  Ezek.  2  :  5-T. 1  Many  ancient  authorities  read  did  many  things. 


such  scepticism.  The  more  striking,  then,  his 
confession.  Conscience  was  too  strong  for  unbe- 
Uef.— Therefore  mighty  works,  etc.  The 
best  text  reads  "  Therefore  do  these  powers 
work  in  him.''  "John  did  no  miracle"  (John 
10:41);  but  if  he  had  risen  from  the  dead,  it 
would  be  different,  and  "  these  powers  "  were 
only  what  would  be  expected.  In  Luke  it  is 
rather  perplexity  than  conviction  in  Herod's 
mind— perplexity  that  led  him  to  seek  to  see 
Jesus  that  he  might  assure  himself  as  to  who 
he  was. 

17-20.  Matthew  and  Mark  relate  the  story 
of  the  imprisonment  and  death  of  John  by 
way  of  explanation  of  Herod's  confession. 
Luke  alludes  to  the  imprisonment  at  the  end 
of  his  account  of  John's  ministry,  and  omits 
the  narrative  of  his  death,  alluding  to  it  only 
in  Herod's  confession,  "  John  have  I  behead- 
ed." The  death  probably  took  place  at  about 
the  beginning  of  the  preaching-tour  mention- 
ed just  above. 

Herod  himself— emphatic,  in  correspond- 
ence to  the  emphatic  "  I "  in  "  John  have  I  be- 
headed " — had  sent  forth.  So  he  did  not  seize 
him  on  the  spot  after  his  bold  reproof,  but  took 
time  to  think,  and  sent  out  afterward,  with 
greater  guilt  because  with  greater  deliberate- 
ness.  The  union  of  Herod  and  Herodias  was 
condemned  by  the  Jews  as  incestuous,  though 
it  was  not  more  so  than  the  previous  marriage 
of  Herodias  witli  Pliilip.  Herod  Antipas, 
Philip,  and  Aristobulus,  who  was  the  father 
of  Herodias,  were  all  half  brothers,  sons  of 
Herod  the  Great  by  different  wives.  Herodias 
first  married  Philip,  her  half  uncle,  and  then 
deserted  him  to  become  the  wife  of  Antipas, 
who  bore  to  her  tlie  same  relation.  Antipas 
liad  long  been  married  to  a  daughter  of  Aretas, 
the  king  of  Arabia,  and  was  living  with  her 
when  he  determined  to  marry  Herodias.  She 
fled  to  her  fitther,  Aretas,  when  she  saw  tlie 
shame  inevitable,  and  he  came  witli  an  army  to 
avenge  her  and  sorely  defeated  Antipas.  Thus 
on  both  sides  the  marriage  of  Herod  and  He- 
rodias was  unquestionably  and  unblushingly 
adulterous.      It    lias    been    discussed   whether 


John  condemned  the  marriage  rather  as  incest- 
uous than  as  adulterous.  Perhaps  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  determine,  and  certainly  it  is  needless : 
the  marriage  was  equally  open  to  both  reproofs. 
— Of  the  time  and  place  of  his  reproof  there  is 
no  hint,  save  that  the  word  said  ("John  said 
unto  Herod  ")  is  in  the  imperfect  tense,  as  in 
verses  14-16,  and  may  indicate  tliat  John  spoke 
more  than  once.  He  was  acting  "  in  the  spirit 
and  power  of  Elijah  "  (i  Kings  is :  n.  is). 

Verses  19,  20  are  peculiar  to  Mark.  Matthew 
has  a  brief  account  of  Herod's  feeling — not 
quite  i\\e  same  as  that  which  appears  in  ]\Iark, 
but  it  may  represent  a  feeling  that  Herod,  fiei'ce 
and  fickle,  entertained  during  some  part  of  the 
time  of  John's  imprisonment.  Herodias  had 
a  quarrel — more  correctly,  "  set  herself"  — 
against  John,  or  "  liad  a  grudge  against  him" 
which  his  imprisonment  did  not  satisfy,  and 
desired  to  kill  him. — Verse  20  gives  us  the  only 
favorable  glimpse  that  is  given  in  Scripture  of 
any  Herod.  The  received  version  says  ob- 
served him.  It  should  be  "kept  him  safe" 
from  the  plottings  of  Herodias. — The  question 
between  did  many  things  and  "was  much 
perplexed  "  is  a  question  of  text ;  and  tlie  read- 
ing which  the  revisei's  have  adopted  is  one  of 
the  happy  discoveries  of  recent  textual  study. 
Herod  "  was  perplexed,"  being  impressed  with 
the  goodness  of  John  and  the  righteousness  of 
his  cause,  and  being  convicted  by  his  own 
guilty  conscience,  and  yet  being  bound  by 
what  he  had  done,  and  unable,  and  no  doubt 
really  unwilling,  to  extricate  himself. — And 
heard  him  gladly.  Perhaps  quite  willing  to 
listen,  by  way  of  amends  to  his  conscience. 
Compare  the  conduct  of  Felix  (Acts24:23-26). 
Herod  appears  at  better  advantage  than  Felix, 
for  there  is  no  sign  that  he  was  looking  for 
bribes. — John  lay  in  prison  probably  a  year 
and  a  half,  and  his  disciples  had  access  to  him 
(Matt.  11 : 2).  The  place  of  confinement  is  said  by 
Josephus  {Ant.  18.  5.  2)  to  have  been  IMaclijerus, 
a  fortress  on  the  eastern  side  of  tlie  Dead  Sea. 
It  is  known  to  have  belonged  to  Aretas,  but  by 
some  means  unknown  it  had  come  into  the 
possession  of  Herod.     The  place  still  bears  the 


Ch.  VI.] 


MARK. 


89 


21  And  when  a  convenient  day  was  come  that  llerod 
on  liis"  liirtli-day  made  a  suiiper  to  his  lords,  higii  cap- 
tains, and  cliief  exlaies  of  (ialilee; 

T2  And  wlien  the  daughter  of  the  said  Herodias  came 
in,  and  danced,'  and  pleased  Herod  and  tliem  that  sat 
with  him,  the  kin;;  said  unto  the  damsel,  Ask  of  me 
whatsoever  thou  wilt,  and  I  will  give  il  thee. 

23  And  he  sware  unto  her,  Whatsoever"  thou  shalt 
ask  of  me,  I  wid  give  il  thee,  unto  the  half  of  my 
kingdom. 

24  And  she  went  forth,  and  said  unto  her  mother. 
What  shall  I  ask  .'  And  she  said.  The  head  of  John  the 
Baptist 

2-5  And  she  came  in  straightway  with  haste  unto  the 
king,  and  asked,  saying,  I  will  that  thou  give  me  by 
and  by  in  a  charger  the  head''  of  John  the  Baptist. 

21)  And  the  king  was  exceeding  sorry  ;  >/''/  for  his 
oaths'  sake,  and  for  their  sakes  which  sat  with  him,  he 
would  not  reject  her. 


21  him  gladly.  And  when  a  convenient  day  was  come, 
that  Herod  on  his  birthday  made  a  supper  to  his 
lords,  and  the  'high  captains,  and  the  chief  men  of 

22 (ialilee;  and  when  ^the  daughter  of  Herodias  her- 
self came  in  and  danced,  ^she  [(leased  Herod  and 
them  that  sat  at  meat  with  him;  and  the  king  said 
unto  the  damsel.  Ask  of  me  whatsoever  thou  wilt, 

23  and  I  will  give  il  thee.  And  he  sware  unto  her. 
Whatsoever  thou  shalt  ask  of  me,  I  will  give  it  thee, 

2-1  unto  the  half  of  my  kingdom.  And  she  went  out, 
and  said  unto  her  mother.  What  shall  1  ask?    And 

25she  said.  The  head  of  John  •'the  lia|)tist.  And  she 
came  in  straightway  with  haste  unto  the  king,  and 
asked,  saying,  1  will  that  thou  forthwith  give  me  in 

26  a  charger  the  head  of  John  •'the  Baptist.  And  the 
king  was  exceeding  sorry  :  but  for  the  sake  of  his 
oaths,  and  of  them  that  sat  at  meat,  he  would  not  ro- 


o  Gen.  40:^20 6  Isa.  3: 16 c  Esth.  5  :  3,  6;  7:2 dPn.  37  :  12.  14. 1  Or,  military  tnbunet    Gr.  chiliarclu 2  Some  ancient 

autborities  read  kis  daughter  Herodias..,. 3  Or,  it... A  Ur.  the  Baptizer. 


name  of  M'Khnur.  It  was  visited  and  identi- 
fied by  Tristram  in  1872.  (See  Tristram's  The 
Land  of  Muab,  cliap.  xiv.)  He  reports  that  he 
found  among  the  ruins  of  the  keep,  or  central 
fortress,  two  dungeons,  one  of  them  deep,  with 
its  sides  scarcely  broken  in.  In  the  masonry  of 
these  dungeons  are  still  visible  the  holes  in  which 
staples  of  wood  and  iron  were  once  fastened. 
"  One  of  these,"  he  says,  "  must  surely  have 
been  the  prison-house  of  John  the  Baptist." 

21.  From  this  point  Luke  is  silent,  and  Mat- 
thew's report  is  brief  and  compendious.  Almost 
all  the  living  touches  of  narration  we  owe  to 
Mark.  A  convenient  day.  For  the  purpose 
of  Herodias — a  day  of  opportunity. — Concern- 
ing the  birth-day  of  Herod,  there  has  been 
inucli  discussion  as  to  whether  the  occasioia  was 
strictly  liis  birtii-day  or  the  anniversary  of  his 
accession  to  the  throne,  which  might  be  called 
by  the  same  name.  Tliere  has  been  some  in- 
terest in  maintaining  the  latter,  because  the  day 
of  his  accx'ssion  is  known,  and  such  a  fixed  date 
would  be  very  useful  in  settling  other  dates  in 
our  Lord's  ministry.  But  the  best  recent  au- 
thorities are  generally  agreed  that  this  was  sim- 
])ly  Herod's  birth-day.  The  celebration,  how- 
ever, with  such  an  a.-<seml)lage,  would  extend 
beyond  a  single  day. — ^The  supper  or  feast  was 
given  (o  his  lords,  or  grandees — mri/i.std.iin,  a 
peculiar  word  corresponding  well  to  "grandees," 
or  "magnates" — and  high  captains,  cliili- 
arclis,  commanders  of  cohorts  in  the  Roman 
army,  and  chief  estates  — literally,  "first 
men"— of  Galilee.  The  distance  of  Machse- 
rus  from  Galilee  occasions  no  difficulty. 

22,  23.  When  the  daujjhter  of  the  said 
Herodias  came  in— the  daughter  of  "Hero- 
dias herself,"  of  the  very  queen — and  danced. 
The  words  "of  Herodias  hei-self"  note  the  in- 
dignation and  horror  with  which  a  Jew  would 
regard  such  an  act.   Dancing-women  were  abun- 


dant, and  in  such  banquets  it  was  common  for 
them  to  appear,  transparentlj'  robed,  and  execute 
voluptuous  and  impurely -suggestive  dances. 
This  was  the  Roman  fashion — sad  and  degrad- 
ing enougli,  but  it  was  quite  another  matter  to 
Jewish  eyes  when  the  daughter  "of  Herodias 
herself"  condescended  to  such  an  exhibition  of 
her  charms  for  the  coarse  delight  of  the  com- 
pany. It  was  the  work  of  her  mother,  too,  who 
was  adapting  her  wiles  to  the  man  she  had  to 
play  upon. — The  girl  pleased  Herod  and  the 
guests — {)leased  the  lowest  there  was  in  them — 
and  tlie  king's  oath  of  reward  was  ready.  In 
form  the  oath  resembles  that  of  Ahasuerus 
(Esth.  5:6).  Probably  the  form  had  become  pro- 
verbial, but  doubtless  Herod  had  no  tliought  of 
anything  great  or  serious  being  asked. 

24,  25.  Whetlier  the  girl  was  in  league  with 
her  mother  in  advance  we  can  only  conjecture; 
but  her  mother  was  her  counsellor,  and  she  was 
her  mother's  ready  tool.  Her  witlidrawal  and 
interview  with  her  mother  Matthew  represents 
only  by  the  clause,  "  Being  put  forward  by  her 
mother,"  with  which  he  introduces  the  retjuest. 
She  was  oiu  liut  a  moment,  for  her  motlier  need- 
ed no  time  to  think;  and  she  came  in 
straightway  with  haste  unto  the  king, 
her  "feet  swift  to  shed  blood"  (Rom.  3:  is). — In 
— ujion — a  charger — ('.  c.  a  platter  or  plate. — 
Immediately.  X<i  delays;  a  confirmation, 
too,  of  the  pro))ability  that  the  prisoner  was 
within  the  walls  when'  they  were  gathered. — 
The  head  of  John  the  Baptist.  No  more 
half  satisfactions  to  the  grudge  of  Herodias. 
Her  hatred  shoidd  now  be  altogether  gratified 
once  for  all,  and  her  foe  sliould  no  more  stir 
the  conscience  of  her  husband. 

26-28.  Here  was  the  testing  of  Herod.  He 
was  exceeding  sorry — sorry  to  be  so  caught; 
sorry  to  destroy  a  mati  whom  lie  knew  to  be  so 
great  and  good  ;  sorry  to  do  real  violence  to  his 


90 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VI. 


27  And  immediately  the  king  sent  an  executioner, 
and  commanded  liis  head  to  be  brought:  and  he  went 
and  beheaded  him  in  the  prison, 

'28  And  brought  his  head  in  a  charger,  and  gave  it  to 
the  damsel :  and  the  damsel  gave  it  to  her  mother. 

'I'd  And  when  his  disciples  heard  uf  it,  they  came  and 
took  up  his  corpse,  and  laid  it  in  a  tomb. 


27ject  her.  And  straightway  the  king  sent  forth  a 
soldier  of  his  guard,  and  commanded  to  bring  his 
head:  and  he  went  and  beheaded  him  in  the  prison, 

28  and  brought  his  head  in  a  charger,  and  gave  it  to  the 

29  damsel ;  and  the  damsel  gave  it  to  her  mother.  And 
when  his  disciples  heard  thereof,  they  came  and  took 
up  his  corpse,  and  laid  it  in  a  tomb. 


conscience;  sorry  to  run  the  risk  of  enraging 
the  people  by  destroying  one  whom  they  rev- 
erenced as  a  prophet.  He  was  sorry — no  doubt 
sincerely — but  the  sorrow  came  to  laothing,  for 
his  oaths  (plural,  indicating  that  he  had  swag- 
geringly  done  great  swearing)  and  his  guests. 
before  whom  he  would  not  break  his  oaths,  de- 
cided the  question.  —  It  was  the  well-known 
strife  between  lionor  and  duty :  a  false  sense 
of  honor  was  waging  war  against  conscience 
and  the  best  self-interest,  and  all  otlier  good 
motives.  It  prevailed  too.  He  would  not 
reject  her. — Swift  again  was  the  movement. 
Immediately.  The  name  of  the  officer  whom 
he  sent  (gpekoulator)  is  a  Latin  word,  speculator, 
"a  spy,"  or  "scout;"  applied  also  to  members 
of  a  body-guard  who  acted  as  messengers.  This 
is  one  of  Mark's  Latinisms. — Commanded 
his  head  to  be  brought.  A  better  reading 
is  "commanded  to  bring  his  head."  Not  un- 
likely the  "  bring  his  head  "  maj'  be  almost  an 
exact  quotation  of  the  rough,  gruff  order  of  the 
surly,  disgusted  king.  The  command  was  lit- 
erally obeyed :  the  head  was  the  girl's  reward  for 
her  dancing,  and  to  her  it  was  given,  upon  the 
platter;  but  she  knew  that  the  plan  was  not 
her  own,  and  loyally  delivered  the  horrid  pres- 
ent to  her  mother.  What  an  ending  for  a  life 
of  holy  i>rotesting  against  sin !  No  glimpse  is 
given  of  the  scene  in  the  prison.  Did  John 
know  by  what  kind  of  influence  he  was  com- 
manded out  of  the  world?  Let  us  hope  that 
he  was  spared  that  horror  and  indignation. 
Never  did  human  event  look  more  as  if  good 
were  only  a  plaything  in  the  hands  of  evil ; 
and  one  would  prefer  to  think  that  the  Baptist 
was  spared  the  struggle  of  reconciling  this  in 
his  dying  moments  with  the  goodness  of  God 
and  the  love  and  righteousness  of  Jesus. 

29.  And  when  his  disciples  heard  of 
it,  they  came.  A  sign  that  they  were  not 
present,  tliough  scarcely  to  be  pressed  as  a 
proof  that  not  one  of  them  was  there.  His 
disciples  cannot  liave  been  very  numerous,  and 
probably  they  ceased,  upon  his  death,  to  e.xist 
in  Palestine  as  a  body  separate  from  the  fol- 
lowers of  Jesus ;  although  in  Acts  18  :  25  and 
19  :  1-7  we  find  traces  of  them  at  a  distance 
after  about  twenty-five  years  liad  passed.     Not 


improbably,  however,  these  distant  influences 
were  borne  out  from  the  centre  at  an  earlier 
date,  while  John  was  still  at  work,  and  before 
the  position  of  Jesus  in  relation  to  him  had 
become  plain. — And  took  up  his  corpse — 
having  now,  as  before,  free  access  to  the  prison 
— and  laid  it  in  a  tomb.  Probably  near 
Machcerus,  but  of  which  no  trace  or  tradition 
remains. — Matthew  adds  that  when  they  had 
buried  his  body  "  they  came  and  told  Jesus" — 
an  indication,  apparently,  that  they  were  now 
ready  to  cast  in  their  lot  with  him.  Yet  per- 
haps they  had  other  thoughts  besides  :  it  would 
be  strange  if  they  did  not  sadly  wonder  why 
Jesus  did  not  rescue  his  great  forerunner,  and 
question  wliether  he  could  be  sincere  in  the 
high  praise  he  gave  him.  Answers  to  some 
such  questions  they  may  have  desired ;  and  all 
that  their  best  welfare  required,  we  may  be 
sure,  the  Master  gave  them.  Some  of  John's 
disciples  went  over  to  Jesus  at  the  first  hint 
from  him  (johni:  36,37),  and  he  was  willing  that 
more  should  go  (John  3 :  27-30) ;  but  toward  the 
last,  with  his  weary  questionings  in  the  j^rison 
(Matt.  II :  3)  and  Ms  sense  of  desertion,  he  may 
not  have  been  so  ready  to  part  with  them.  He 
may  have  thought  it  his  duty  to  keep  them 
about  him,  or  as  many  of  them  as  he  could, 
till  greater  certainty  about  Jesus  could  be  ob- 
tained. 

30-44.  THE  APOSTLES  HAVING  RE- 
TURNED, JESUS  CROSSES  THE  LAKE 
WITH  THEM  IN  SEARCH  OF  REST,  AND 
THERE  FEEDS  FIVE  THOUSAND.  Pnr- 
allels,  Matt.  14  :  13-21 ;  Luke  9  :  10-17 ;  John 
6  :  1-14. — Here,  and  here  alone  between  the  be- 
ginning of  the  GaliUuan  ministry  and  the  week 
of  the  Passion,  we  have  four  parallel  reports. 
John  comes  into  parallelism  with  the  synoptists 
at  this  crossing  of  the  lake,  and  continues  par- 
allel through  the  record  of  the  return,  when 
Jesus  walks  on  the  water,  though  here  we  lose 
our  four-fold  record  by  the  silence  of  Luke. 
John  contributes  a  valuable  note  of  time  in 
the  remark  that  the  passover  was  at  hand. 
The  death  of  the  Baptist  occurred,  therefore, 
in  the  spring,  and  there  remained  just  a  year 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  after  the  death  of  the 
forerunner. 


Ch.  VL] 


MARK. 


91 


30  And"  the  apostles  gathered  themselves  together 
unto  .Icsus,  and  told  liiiu  all  things,  both  what  they 
had  done,  an<i  what  they  had  taught. 

:U  And  he  said  unto  thuni,  Conie  ye  yourselves  apart 
into  a  desert  |>lace,  and  rest  a  while:  for  there  were 
many  coming  and  going,  and  they  had  no  leisure  so 
much  as  to  eat. 

82  And  they  departed  into  a  desert  place  by  ship 
privately. 

33  And  the  people  saw  them  departing,  and  many 
knew  him,  and  ran  alool  thither  out  of  all  cities,  and 
outwent  them,  and  came  together  unto  him. 


30  And  the  apostles  gather  themselves  together  unto 
Jesus;  and  they  told  him  all  things,  what.soever  they 

31  had  done,  and  whatsoever  they  had  taught.  And  he 
saith  unto  them.  Come  ye  yourselves  apart  into  a 
desert  place,  and  rest  a  while.  Kor  there  were  nianv 
coming  and  going,  and  they  had  no  leisure  so  much 

32  as  to  eat.   And  they  wentaway  in  the  boat  toadesert 

33  place  apart.  And  //c  ;jto/y/f'saw  them  going,  and 
luany  knew  them,  and  they  ran  there  together  'on 


a  Luke  9  :  10.- 


-1  Or,  h]i  land 


30,  Tlie  tidings  of  the  death  of  John  would 
seem  to  liave  reached  Jesus  while  he  was  still 
alone ;  but  about  tlie  same  time  liis  company 
Wiis  again  gathered  aroiuul  liim  by  the  return 
of  the  apostles.  Of  tlie  tone  of  the  report  they 
brought  to  him  nothing  is  said — whether  ciieer- 
ful  or  sad — nor  is  there  anywhere  any  glimpse 
of  them  in  tiie  work  of  this  mi.ssion.  They  re- 
ported what  they  had  done  ;  Mark  adds,  and 
what  they  had  taught.  In  their  teaching 
lie  would  certainly  see  defects,  but  his  response 
to  their  report  would  be  nothing  else  than 
cheering :  he  was  training  them,  and  he  would 
not  fail  to  encourage  them. 

31,  'S'Z.  The  invitation  was  addressed  to  the 
twelve  alone.  Come  ye  yourselves  apart 
into  a  desert  place,  and  rest  a  while 
— i.  e.  a  little  while.  A  while  is  l)y  no  means 
an  ade(iuate  translation  of  olujon,  "a  little." 
He  did  not  e.xpect  long  rest,  but  he  did  hope 
for  a  little. — The  place  was  probably  Caper- 
naum. After  the  reunion  of  the  comj)any  of 
Jesus  the  crowd  lia  1  returned,  and  those  who 
were  coining  and  going  gave  them  no  lei- 
sure so  much  as  to  eat.  The  whole  of 
verse  31  is  peculiar  to  Mark,  and  both  parts  of 
it  are  intensely  characteristic — the  representa- 
tion of  our  Lord's  feeling  and  the  graphic  de- 
scription of  the  circumstances. — For  the  invita- 
tion two  motives  appear,  one  in  Mark  and  one 
in  Matthew.  From  Mark  we  should  attribute 
it  to  tender  care  of  the  apostles,  weary  from 
their  work,  and  to  his  desire  to  be  alone  with 
tliem  for  a  little.  This  is  one  of  the  touching 
illustrations  of  his  thouglitfulness  toward  tiiem. 
In  Matthew  it  is  wlien  Jesus  lieard  of  the  death 
of  the  liaptist  that  lie  withdrew  jjrivately  to 
the  desert  place.  Joined  with  the  other  motive 
was  the  desire  to  be  in  quiet,  that  he  might 
have  leisure  for  the  thoughts  that  the  death  of 
Jolin  suggested.  Tlie  death  of  such  a  man 
must  have  been  a  heavy  blow  to  him,  more  es- 
pecially since  it  was  such  a  death.  His  per- 
sonal love  for  John  would  make  him  now  a 
mourner ;  and  the  event  must  also  have  awak- 


ened the  thouglit  of  Matt.  17  :  12 — "  Likewise 
shall  also  the  Son  of  man  suffer  of  them  " — 
and  have  brought  the  certainty  of  his  own 
deatli  freshly  before  him.  It  may  also  have 
led  him  to  think  of  modifying  his  method 
thenceforth  and  giving  himself  more  fully,  as 
he  did,  to  the  training  of  his  apostles.  Thus 
the  two  motives  were  one  in  effect,  driving  him 
away  from  the  shifting,  intruding,  exacting 
crowd  to  be  alone  with  his  own. — Tiiey  went 
away,  not  by  ship,  but  "in  the  boat" — the 
boat  that  they  were  wont  to  use.  They  must 
have  gone  in  the  early  morning. 

33.  They  succeeded  in  getting  away,  but  not 
tinobserved.  Luke  says  they  went  to  Beth- 
saida ;  John,  that  Jesus  "  went  up  into  the 
mountain  ;"  Matthew  and  Mark,  merely  that 
the  place  was  desert — /.  e.  uninhaluted.  The 
fact  seems  to  be  that  they  went  to  Bethsaida, 
which  stood  at  the  extreme  north  of  the  lake, 
where  the  Jordan  enters  it  (see  note  on  chap. 
8  :  22),  and  thence  proceeded  a  little  to  the 
soutli-east,  to  some  convenient  point  in  the 
hills  that  rise  from  the  shore  of  the  lake, 
where  they  might  hope  to  be  alone.  It  may 
be  that  at  Bethsaida  itself  they  did  not  touch 
at  all,  and  that  Luke's  mention  of  it  is  meant 
only  for  a  general  designation  of  the  locality. 
The  distance  from  Capernaum  to  the  vicinity 
of  Bctiisaida  would  not  be  more  than  six  or 
eight  miles,  and  could  be  traversed  on  foot 
about  as  quickly  as  by  boat ;  if  the  boat  was  in 
no  haste,  more  quickly.  In  the  journey  for 
rest  there  would  be  no  haste,  and  the  pursu- 
ing crowd  arrived  first.  The  people  were  out 
of  all  cities — /.  c.  from  many  towns  in  that 
region,  esjwcially  from  those  that  must  be 
piissed  on  the  way.  The  crowd  grew  in  going. 
John  sjieaks  of  Jesus  already  seated  in  the 
mountain,  lifting  up  his  eyes  and  seeing  the 
crowd  aiiproaching,  which  may  be  a  remin- 
iscence of  the  fact  that  they  came,  not  all  at 
once,  but  kept  streaming  in.  John  also  con- 
nects the  mention  of  the  coming  throng  with 
the  fact  that  the  passover  was  at  hand.     It 


92 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VI. 


34  And  Jesus,  when  he  came  out,  saw  much  people, 
and  was  moved  with  compassion  toward  them,  because" 
they  were  as  sheep  not  having  a  shepherd  ;  and  he  be- 
gan to  teach  them  many  things. 

85  And*  when  the  day  was  now  far  spent,  his  dis- 
ciples came  unto  him,  and  said.  This  is  a  desert  place, 
and  now  the  time  is  far  passed : 

36  f^end  them  away,  that  they  may  go  into  the  coun- 
try round  about,  and  into  the  Villages,  and  buy  them- 
selves bread :  for  they  have  nothing  to  eat. 

37  He  answered  and  said  unto  them.  Give  ye  them  to 
eat.  And  they  say  unto  him,  .Shall  we'  go  and  buy  two 
hundred  pennyworth  of  bread,  and  give  them  to  eat? 


34  foot  from  all  the  cities,  and  outwent  them.  And  he 
came  forth  and  saw  a  great  multitude,  and  he  had 
compassion  on  them,  because  they  were  as  sheep  not 
having  a  shepherd  :    and  he  began  to  teach  them 

35  many  things.  And  when  the  day  was  now  far  spent, 
his  disciples  came  unto  him,  and  said,  The  place  is 

36 desert,  and  the  day  is  now  far  spent:  send  them 
away,  that  they  may  go  into  the  country  and  vil- 
lages round  about,  and  buy  themselves  somewhat  to 

37  eat.  But  he  answered  and  said  unto  them,  dive  ye 
them  to  eat.  And  they  say  unto  him.  Shall  we  go 
and  buy  two  hundred  ^shilling-worth  of  bread,  and 


ol  Kings  22  :  17 6  Matt.  14  :  l.i :  Luke  9  :  12  ;  John  6  :  5....C  Num.  11  :  l.S,  22;  2  Kings 4:43.- 

coin  worth  about  eight  pence  half-peuuy. 


-1  The  word  in  the  Greek  denotes  i 


may  be  that  some  part  of  the  multitude  was 
made  tip  of  pilgrims  to  Jerusalem,  who  turned 
aside  to  see  the  Prophet  of  Galilee. 

34.  He  came  out.  From  the  boat.  The 
disciples  may  have  been  impatient  that  the 
ever-present  throng  was  even  here;  with  the 
Master,  liowever,  it  was  not  impatience,  but 
compassion. — The  activity  of  the  day  was  rich 
and  various.  The  motive,  pity  for  tlie  spirit- 
ual state  of  the  multitude,  which  seems  to 
have  been  often  affecting  him  with  a  sad  sur- 
prise. The  shepherd-impulse  was  strong  in  his 
heart,  and  the  sight  of  sheep  unshepherdcd  al- 
ways drew  it  forth.  So  he  began  to  teach 
them  many  things,  or,  as  in  Luke,  he 
"spoke  to  them  of  the  kingdom  of  God,"  into 
which  as  a  fold  he  would  gather  the  unshep- 
herdcd   (Luke   15:4-6;    19:10;    John  10:16).       He    alsO 

"healed  their  sick"  (Matthew),  or,  as  in  Luke, 
"  healed  them  that  had  need  of  healing."  Such 
was  the  rest  that  he  found,  and  such  the  oppor- 
tunity for  quiet  meditation.  He  had  had  no 
leisure  to  eat;  but,  while  he  became  a  shep- 
herd to  the  shepherdless,  no  doubt  his  heart 
was  full  of  the  sentiment  of  John  4  :  32-34 : 
"  My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent 
me,  and  to  finish  his  work." 

35-44.  In  this  paragraph  the  synoptists  are 
quite  closely  parallel,  save  that  Matthew  con- 
denses a  little,  as  usual,  and  Mark  adds  his 
fresh  touches  of  description.  John  diverges  at 
the  beginning  in  attributing  the  inquiry  about 
the  possibility  of  feeding  the  multitude,  not  to 
the  amazed  disciples  when  Jesus  has  i>roposed 
that  tliey  shall  do  it,  but  to  Jesus  himself,  as  a 
question  intended  to  test  the  faith  of  Philip. 
If  it  were  necessary,  no  doubt  the  two  con- 
versations could  be  woven  in  together  and 
liarmonizcd  with  a  tolerable  degree  of  plausi- 
bility ;  but  it  is  more  satisfactory  to  leave  them 
as  two  independent  reports  of  the  same  event. 
Perhaps  the  independence  is  worth  more  to  us 
than  an  unquestionable  harmony  would  be. 
[This  is  true,  for  the  value  of  several  narratives, 
instead  of  one,  must  be  due  to  their  independ- 


ence. Yet  harmony  is  compatible  with  inde- 
pendence. Nay,  if  several  accounts  of  the  same 
events  are  true,  thej'  must  be  in  real  harmony 
with  one  another,  though  we  are  sometimes 
unable  to  show  this.  The  omission  from  the 
narratives  of  a  single  connecting  act  or  remark 
may  render  it  for  ever  impossible  for  us  to  see 
the  exact  connection  or  point  out  the  exact 
sequence  of  the  things  reported.  But  it  is 
desirable  to  show  the  harmony  of  the  different 
narratives  wherever  this  can  be  done,  or  at 
least  to  show  that  the  several  accounts,  though 
independent,  need  not  be  supposed  to  contra- 
dict one  another  at  any  point.  Compare  notes 
on  John  6  :  5  sq. — A.  H.] 

The  suggestion  of  the  apostles  (verses  35,  36) 
seemed  not  only  rational,  but  the  only  ration- 
al one :  the  people  must  not  be  kept  away 
from  the  necessary  comforts,  and  the  disciples 
thought  that  even  for  Jesus  to  keep  them  long- 
er would  be  no  kindness.  A  startling  proposal, 
Give  ye  them  to  eat.  The  words  are  iden- 
tical in  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  showing 
how  sharply  the  incisive  and  startling  com- 
mand entered  the  minds  of  the  hearers.  Mat- 
thew introduces  it  with  the  equally  astonishing 
remark,  "  They  need  not  depart."  He  proposed 
that  which  is  impossible  to  men  ;  but  he  him- 
self was  there.  There  had  been  as  yet  no  mul- 
tiplication of  food  by  his  hands,  so  far  as  we 
know,  except  as  the  turning  of  water  into  wine 
(John  2:1-11)  might  be  called  such.  The  belief 
of  tlie  apostles  in  his  miraculous  power  ought 
by  this  time  to  have  been  perfect ;  but  it  is  to 
be  remembered  that  he  did  not  propose  him- 
self to  feed  the  multitude :  lie  said.  Give  ye 
them  to  eat.  After  that  proposal  it  was  only 
natural  that  they  should  think  first  of  tlieir 
own  resources,  and  inquire  how  the  thing 
could  be  done.  It  was  not  altogether  unbelief 
that  made  them  speak  of  buying  bread  for  the 
peoi>le ;  he  had  compelled  them  to  look  at  the 
matter  from  that  side.  They  knew  tliat  tliey 
had  notliing  adequate,  and  were  equally  sure 
that  it  was  im})racticable  to  btiy.— Two  hun- 


Ch.  VI.] 


MARK. 


93 


38  He  saitli  unto  theiu,  How  many  loaves  have  ye? 
go  and  see.  And  when  they  knew,  Ihey  say,  tive,  and 
two  fishes. 

'.i'J  And  he"  commanded  them  to  make  all  sit  down 
by  companies  upon  the  green  f;niss. 

4it  And  they  sat  down  in  ranks  by  hundreds,  and  by 
fifties. 

41  And  when  he  had  taken  the  five  loaves  and  the 
two  fishes,  lie  looked  up  to  heaven,  and  blessed,''  and 
brake  tlie  loaves,  and  f;ave  Ihnn  to  his  disciples  to  set 
before  tbeni;  and  the  two  fishes  divided  he  among 
them  all. 


38 give  them  to  eat?  And  he  saith  unto  them.  How 
many  loaves  have  ye?  gn  and  see.     And  when  they 

39  knew,  they  say.  Five,  and  two  fishes.  And  he  com- 
manded them  that  all  .'5hould  'sit  down  by  companies 

40  upon  the  green  gra.ss.     And  they  sat  down  in  ranks, 

41  by  hundreds,  and  by  fifties.  And  he  took  the  five 
loaves  and  the  two  fishes,  and  looking  up  to  heaven, 
he  blessed,  and  brake  the  loaves  ;  and  he  gave  to 
the  disciples  to  set  before  them  ;  and  the  two  fishes 


o  ch.  8  :  6  ;  Matt,  la  :  35. . .  .ft  I  Sam.  9  :  1.3  ;  Matt.  26  :  26  ;  Luke  24  :  30.- 


-1  Gr.  recline. 


dred  pennyworth  of  bread.    The  proposal 

to  buy  i.s  omitted  by  Matthew,  and  the  quan- 
tity by  Luke.  This  quantity  is  mentioned  in 
Mark  witliout  C(jmment,  and  in  John  as  in- 
sufhtient.  Tlie  denarius  ("penny"  is  a  very 
poor  translation,  or,  ratlier,  not  a  translation 
at  all)  was  equal  actually  to  about  fifteen  cents, 
but  relatively  to  considerably  more.  In  Matt. 
20  :  2  it  appears  as  a  suitable  return  for  a  day's 
labor. — In  Mark  alone  are  the  disciples  sent  to 
find  liow  many  loaves  they  have.  Their  in- 
vestif^ation  and  rep(jrt  are  reiiresentcd  in  the 
words  when  they  knew,  they  say.  Lit- 
erally, ''  kut)wing,  they  .say."  One  of  Mark's 
telling'  brevities.  The  loaves  were  thin  and 
brittle;  from  Luke  11  :  5,  G  it  appears  that  three 
would  l)e  required  for  a  meal  for  a  single  per- 
son. The  fishes  are  called  in  John  (not  else- 
wJiere)  opsnria,  a  word  that  denotes  a  condi- 
ment, something  eaten  with  bread  or  other 
stai)le  food.  Hence  the  idea  of  "  small  fishes ;" 
but  that  idea  cann(jt  be  insisted  on,  as  the  word 
had  come  to  be  used  of  fish  generally.  After 
the  report  of  a  hopeless  quantity,  Matthew 
a(hls  the  reply  of  Jesus :  "  Bring  them  liither 
to  me  " — the  one  hope  of  making  the  small 
supply  sufficient.  This  is  the  (jne  hoi)eful  thing 
to  do  with  Christian  gifts  and  resources  of 
every  kind — otter  them  to  him  in  whose  hands 
a  handful  can  feed  a  multitude. 

Tlie  proposal  thus  to  feed  the  people  was  an- 
otlier  suggestion  of  tlie  Shepherd's  heart.  Bod- 
ily wants  were  not  beneath  his  notice,  and  yet 
tliis  act  had  predominantly  a  .sj)iritual  purpose. 
Brief  though  the  record  is,  that  had  been  agreat 
day  of  power  and  teaching,  and  such  a  day  might 
well  ell  SL>  with  a  climax  of  convincing  might. 
The  people  mu.st  sit  down  in  order  to  secure 
orderly  and  impartial  distribution.  Heavenly 
things  must  be  handled  with  earthly  wisdom  ; 
bread  produced  by  miracle  must  be  distributed 
in  the  best  human  order.  The  description  of 
the  sitting  down  is  peculiar  to  Mark,  and  is  un- 
like anything  else  in  the  New  Testament.  He 
commanded  them  to  make  all  sit  down 
by  companies — xi/mposia  symposia,  "company 


by  company" — upon  the  green  grass.  And 
they  sat  down  jirasud  prasiui — not  exactly  in 
ranks,  but  rather  in  blocks  like  garden-beds, 
some  in  blocks  of  a  hundred  and  some  by  fif- 
ties. The  repetition  or  doubling  of  the  descrip- 
tive words  is  in  the  Hebrew  style.  The  change 
of  word  from  the  general  si/itiposia,  "  company," 
to  the  purely  descriptive j:>ra6-ta/,  "  garden-beds," 
shows  how  the  scene  arose  pictorially  in  the 
memory  of  the  narrator,  and  he  agaiit  saw  the 
people  arranged  in  squares  and  looking,  in  their 
vari-colored  clothing,  like  flower-beils  on  the 
grass. — The  gr;i.ss  is  mentioned  by  Matthew  and 
John.  John  says  that  there  was  "  much  ;" 
Mark  alone  calls  it  green  grass — a  part,  again, 
of  the  pictorial  memory  of  the  scene.  The  word 
corresponds,  too,  to  the  season,  the  passover- 
timc,  in  spring. 

He  looked  up  to  heaven,  and  blessed. 
So  Matthew  and  Mark— t.  e.  he  blessed  God, 
praised  God  in  thanksgiving;  Luke,  "  lie  blessed 
them,"  the  loaves  and  fishes — invoked  the  bless- 
ing of  God  upon  them  ;  John,  "  he  gave  thanks." 
It  was  simply  the  grateful  prayer  before  eating, 
"  grace  before  meat,"  ofTered  by  the  host  or  head 
of  the  family.  (So  Luke  24  :  30;  see  notes  on 
^lark  14  :  22,  23.)  Distribution  was  made  by 
the  hands  of  the  disciples ;  so  expressly  in  all 
but  John.  The  separate  mention  of  the  giving 
out  of  the  fishes  is  a  slight  link  between  Mark 
and  John. — In  Mark's  addition  to  what  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  tell,  and  the  two  fishes  di- 
vided he  among  them  all,  we  .'^ee  distinctly 
recorded  the  deep  sense  of  wonder,  and  yet  the 
keen  observation  of  an  observer  close  at  hand. 
This  story,  as  told  in  Mark,  can  be  nothing  else 
than  the  report  of  an  eye-witness ;  the  evi- 
dences are  of  the  plainest  and  most  irresistible 
kind. — As  to  the  process  of  the  miracle,  spec- 
ulations seem  to  be  in  vain.  Theories  of  the 
acceleration  of  natural  jirocesses  have  been  pro- 
posed for  such  occasions,  but  they  are  useless, 
and  when  closely  examined  are  absurd.  If  this 
work  was  performed  at  all,  it  was  done  by  cre- 
ative power ;  and  that  is  enough  to  say  of  it. 
It  was  no  insuflicient  or  halfway  work:  they 


94 


MARK. 


[Cfi.  VI. 


42  And  they"  did  all  eat,  and  were  filled. 

43  And  they  took  up  twelve  baskets  full  of  the  frag- 
ments and  of  the  fishes. 

44  And  they  that  did  eat  of  the  loaves  were  about 
five  thousand  men. 

45  And  straii^htway*  he  constrained  his  disciples  to 
get  into  the  ship,  and  to  go  to  the  other  side  before 
unto  Bethsaida,  while  he  sent  away  the  people. 


42 divided  he  among  them  all.    And  they  did  all  eat, 

43  and  were  filled.    And  they  took  up  Ijrokeu  pieces, 

44  twelve  basketliils,  and  also  of  the  fishes.  And  they 
that  ate  the  loaves  were  five  thousand  men. 

45  And  straightway  he  constrained  his  disciples  to 
enter  into  the  boat,  and  to  go  before  him  unto  the 
other  side  to  Lethsaida,  while  he  himself  sendeth  the 


,  Deut.  8:3 6  Matt.  14  :  22:  Joha  6  :  17. 


were  all  satisfied. — In  John  the  command  to 
gather  tlie  fragments  is  mentioned ;  in  the 
others,  only  the  gathering.  The  word  for  bas- 
kets here  is  not  the  same  as  in  the  record  of  the 
similar  miracle  in  chap.  8  :  8.  (See  note  there.) 
The  word  here  is  cophinus,  the  source  of  our 
words  "coffer"  and  "  coifin."  This,  apparent- 
ly, was  the  wicker  provision-ba.sket  that  was  in 
common  use.  The  collecting  of  the  fragments 
shows  again,  like  the  order  in  the  distribution 
of  the  food,  the  Saviour's  purpose  that  miracles 
shall  never  displace  prudence.  Though  divine 
power  can  produce  a  superabundant  supply, 
still  it  is  right  "  that  nothing  be  lost." — A  fresh 
sign  of  the  independence  of  the  four  narratives 
is  found  in  the  manner  of  recording  the  num- 
ber of  the  multitude.  That  "  there  were  about 
five  thousand  men  "  is  mentioned  by  Luke  in 
connection  with  the  hint  of  the  disciples  that 
it  was  ii.:;>cssible  to  buy  bread  for  so  many ; 
by  John,  in  connection  with  their  sitting  down, 
when  their  nun:ber  was  ascertained  ;  Mark  says 
at  the  very  end,  just  after  mentioning  the  great 
store  of  fragments  that  was  left,  that  they  that 
did  eat  of  the  loaves  were  about  five 
thousand  men  (about,  however,  is  omitted 
in  the  best  text) ;  Matthew,  at  the  same  point, 
says  that  they  were  "  about  five  thousand  men, 
besides  women  and  children."  The  women  and 
children  would  be  arranged,  according  to  Jew- 
ish custom,  separately  from  the  men,  and  in 
such  a  multitude  would  be  less  in  number. 
Thus  there  are  three  different  ways  of  con- 
necting the  number  with  the  story,  all  natural 
— a  striking  i)roof  of  independence. 

The  immediate  effect  oftlie  great  work  is  report- 
ed by  John  ahme  (e :  i4) :  "  Then  those  men,  when 
they  had  seen  the  miracle  that  Jesus  did,  said. 
This  is  of  a  truth  the  prophet  that  should  come 
into  the  world."  Conviction  of  his  greatness,  but 
conviction  of  what  kind  the  next  section  shows. 

45-56.  JESUS  RETURNS.  WALKING  ON 
THE  WATER,  AND  HEALS  MANY.  Parallels, 
Matt.  14  :  22-36 ;  John  6  :  15-21.— John  remains 
in  parallelism,  but  we  lose  our  fourfold  harmony 
by  the  dropping  out  of  Luke,  who  says  nothing 
of  this  scene.  The  key  to  this  section  is  found 
in  John  (5 :  15:  "Jesus  therefore  perceiving  that 
they  were  about  to  come  and  take  him  by  force 


to  make  him  a  king,  withdrew  again  into  the 
mountain  himself  alone."  Instead  o'f  "  with- 
drew "  Tischendorf  reads  "  fleeth  again  to  the 
mountain,"  on  no  very  great  manuscript  au- 
thority (though  the  Sinaitic  Manuscript  sup- 
I^orts  it),  but  mainly  because  this  ancient  read- 
ing is  most  unlike  anything  that  a  corrector 
would  produce.  The  order  is,  (1)  After  the 
miracle  there  is  a  rising  purpose,  more  and  more 
openly  expressed,  to  compel  him  to  take  his 
place  as  the  King  of  Israel.  This,  then,  is  the 
result  of  his  mighty  works  and  of  his  ministry 
in  Galilee  generally — the  temptation  of  Satan 
in  the  wilderness  is  renewed  by  the  men  of 
Israel.  This  was  really  the  temptation  of  Matt. 
4  :  8-10.  (2)  Jesus  feels  the  force  of  the  tempta- 
tion, and  sets  himself  not  only  to  repel  it,  but 
to  stop  it.  (3)  Accordingly,  he  constrains  his 
disciples  to  embark  for  the  opposite  shore,  prob- 
ably because  they  are  only  too  ready  to  fall  in 
with  the  movement  and  must  be  kept  out  of 
it.  (4)  He  breaks  up  the  assembly,  inducing 
the  multitude  to  leave  him.  By  what  means  he 
induced  them  we  are  not  told ;  but  it  is  almost 
a  wonder  that  this  scene  has  not  attracted  the 
imagination  of  some  great  painter — Jesus  scatter- 
ing the  multitude  who  are  tempting  him  to  ac- 
cept a  crown  of  worldly  sovereignty.  (5)  When 
he  had  sent  them  away — or,  as  the  Revision 
reads,  "taken  leave  of  them"  (Mark) — he  goes 
away  alone  to  the  mountain  for  prayer.  Tisch- 
endorf's  reading,  "  he  fieeth,"  is  extremely  fresh 
and  striking,  and  bears  strong  internal  marks 
of  genuineness :  he  flees  out  of  the  scene  of 
temptatitin  to  the  place  of  prayer.  But  he  does 
not  lice  to  prayer  until  he  has  rejielled  the 
temptation  and  scattered  the  tempters.  (G)  He 
spends  nearly  the  whole  night  in  i)rayer,  tell- 
ing his  Father  of  the  carnal  acceptance  and 
spiritual  rejection  that  he  has  met  with,  and 
adjusting  his  thoughts  to  the  necessities  of  his 
position.  After  such  misconception  he  must 
deliberately  and  forcibly  throw  away  this  false 
popularity,  which  he  does  next  day,  in  his  great 
discourse  on  the  bread  of  life,  in  the  synagogue 
at  Capernaum  (John  6  :  i-.'-ii). 

45-47.  The  disciples,  apparently,  were  not 
anxious  to  go:  they  had  to  be  constrained. 
— In  the  wt)rds  to  the  other  side  unto  Beth- 


Ch.  VI.] 


MARK. 


95 


46  And  when  he  had  sent  them  away,  he"  departed 
into  a  mountain  to  pray. 

47  And  wlien  even  was  come,  the  ship  was  in  the 
midst  of  tlie  sea,  and  he  alone  on  the  land. 

48  And  he  saw  them  toilint;''  in  rowing :  lor  the  wind 
was  contrary  unto  them:  and  about  the  fourth  watch 
of  the  night  he  conieth  unto  them,  walking  upon  the 
sea,  and  would  have  pa.ssed'  by  them. 

4i)  liut  when  they  saw  him  walking''  upon  the  sea, 
they"  supposed  it  had  been  a  spirit,  and  cried  out: 


46  multitude  away.    And  after  he  had  taken  leave  of 

47  them,  he  departed  into  the  ni<iuntain  to  pray.  And 
when  even  was  come,  the  boat  was  in  the  midst  of 

48  the  sea,  and  he  alone  on  the  land.  And  seeing  theiu 
distressed  in  rowing,  for  the  wind  was  contrary  unto 
them,  about  the  fourth  watch  of  the  night  he  cometh 
unto  them,  walking  on  the  sea;  and  he  would  have 

49  passed  by  them  :  but  they,  when  they  saw  him  walk- 
ing on  the  sea,  supposed  that  it  was  an  apparition, 


acb.  1  :  35;  Matt.  6:6;  Luke  6  :  12 6  John  1  :  13 c  Luke  24  : 


.d  Job  9:  8....e  Luke  24  :  37. 


saida  we  have  the  puzzle  as  to  the  site  of  Beth- 
.saida,  since,  according  to  Luke,  they  had  come 
to  Betlisaida  in  coming  over  to  this  the  eastern 
side.  But  they  were  now  in  the  hills  below 
Bt'tlisaida,  farther  d(jwn  the  eastern  shore;  and 
Mark's  meaning  probably  is  that  he  sent  the 
disciples  on  in  the  boat,  bidding  them  take 
Betlisaida,  at  the  head  of  the  lake,  in  their  way, 
and  promising  to  join  them  there.  Many  such 
a  geographical  puzzle  would  be  solved  in  a  mo- 
ment if  we  were  familiar  with  the  every-day 
expressions  of  the  people;  in  fact,  they  occur 
in  consequence  of  the  artlessness  of  ^he  narra- 
tive, the  writers  being  frwpiently  unconscious 
of  any  need  of  explanation. — When  he  had 
sent  them  away.  The  word  means  "to  sep- 
arate one's  self;"  but  in  later  Greek  it  is  used 
for  saying  "Farewell."— He  departed  into  a 
mountain  to  pray,  glad  to  l)e  alone,  tcmpta- 
tiiin  behind  him  and  the  solitary  mountain  be- 
fore.— When  even  was  come — /.  e.  the  later 
evening,  extending  from  six  o'clock  till  night. 
— He  alone  on  the  land  is  peculiar  to  Mark. 
A  grajihic  addition,  but  scarcely  equal  to  John's 
"  It  was  now  dark,  and  Jesus  was  not  yet  come 
to  them,"  in  which  it  is  apparent  that  they  ex- 
pected him  to  come. — The  violent  wind,  men- 
tioned incidentally  by  ^Matthew  and  Mark  and 
directly  by  John,  continued  from  evening  till 
the  fourth  watch  of  the  night,  which  included 
tlie  last  three  hours  before  morning.  Thomson 
( The  Land  and  the  Book,  2.  32)  tells  of  a  storm 
tiiat  he  encountered  in  this  very  i)lace,  the  wind 
blowing  violently  from  the  north  and  north- 
east; so  that  for  three  days  it  would  have  been 
impossible  for  a  boat  to  reach  the  land  at  Betli- 
saida. In  such  a  storm  a  boat  must  be  driven, 
just  as  that  of  the  disciples  was,  out  of  its 
course  and  across  to  Gennesaret,  south  of  its 
destination. 

48.  "We  reach  a  region  of  mystery  in  these 
words,  he  saw  them  toilint;  in  rowing,  or, 
more  accurately,  "  seeing  them  distressed  in 
rowing,"  the  "seeing"  peculiar  to  Mark.  The 
word  certainly  seems  to  imjily  more  than  that 
he  knew  from  observing  the  wind  that  they 
must  be  in  trouble.  It  is  a  word  of  sensation, 
and  tells  that  he  saw  them.  According  to  Mat- 
7 


thew,  they  were  in  the  midst  of  the  lake.  Even 
the  full  moon  of  the  passover  season  is  not  suf- 
ficient to  account  for  such  seeing,  and  it  certain- 
ly appears  as  if  Mark  meant  to  tell  of  a  super- 
natural seeing  from  afar. — He  cometh  unto 
them,  walking  upon  the  sea.  Why  on  the 
sea?  The  reason  for  this  exceptional  work  is 
to  be  sought  in  his  heart.  His  friends  were  in 
trouble,  beating  vainly  against  the  storm,  and 
perhaps  in  danger;  they  expected  him  to  join 
them,  and  he  apparently  had  promised  it ;  they 
could  not  reach  the  shore  to  take  him  in  ;  they 
were  out  there  by  his  act,  he  having  con- 
strained them  to  go.  It  was  not  in  his  heart 
to  leave  them  in  their  perplexity,  and  there 
was  no  way  to  go  to  them,  except  by  the  exer- 
cise of  his  supernatural  power.  Moreover,  this 
way  of  approach  would  give  him  one  of  the 
best  of  opportunities  to  test,  and  so  to  educate, 
their  faitli.  This  simple  explanation,  by  which 
the  act  is  traced  to  his  feeling  toward  his  disci- 
ples, certainly  seems  better  than  a  resort  to  the- 
ories of  rapture  and  half  unconsciousness  such 
as  have  sometimes  been  proposed. — Observe  the 
pause  after  Avaiking  upon  the  sea  ;  it  should 
be  a  colon  at  least,  if  not  a  period. — And  would 
have  passed  by  them — which  is  peculiar  to 
^lark — means  not  merely  "  he  came  near  pass- 
ing them,"  or  "  he  would  liave  been  likely  to 
pass  tliem  if  they  had  not  cried  out,"  but  "  he 
wished,"  or  willed,  "to  pa.ss  by  them."  He 
was  passing,  not  unconsciously,  but  deliberate- 
ly ;  he  meant  to  pass  them  l^efore  coming  di- 
rectly to  them.  Why?  Apparently,  in  order 
that  they  might  see  him  in  the  dim  light  and 
have  the  opportunity  to  recognize  him.  He 
would  put  tlicir  faith  and  discernment  to  the 
test  by  this  indirect  approach.  They  knew  that 
he  was  alone  on  the  land,  and  that  he  was  in- 
tending to  come  to  tlicni.  They  knew  his  power; 
would  they  know  him  in  this  unwonted  ap- 
proach ?  Would  they  be  looking  for  him  even 
in  the  .storm,  or  would  they  be  supposing  that 
the  storm  rendered  all  hope  of  seeing  him 
vain?  A  testing  of  faith  and  a  lesson  of  faith 
might  be  brought  out  of  this  for  the  good  of 
the  disciples. 
49,  50.  Alas  for  their  faith  and  their  spirit- 


96 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VI. 


50  For  they  all  saw  him,  and  were  trouhled.  And 
iiumediately  he  talked  with  them,  and  saith  unto  them. 
Be  of  good  cheer :"  it  is  I ;  be  not  afraid. 

51  And  he  went  up  unto  them  into  the  ship;  and 
the'  wind  ceased :  and  they  were  sore  amazed  in  them- 
selves heyond  measure,  and  wondered. 

52  For  they  considered  not  the  'miracle  of  the  loaves: 
for  their  hcarf^  wa.s  hardened. 

53  And''  when  they  hud  passed  over,  they  came  into 
the  land  of  dennesaret,  and  drew  to  the  shore. 

54  And  when  they  were  come  out  of  the  ship,  straight- 
way they  knew  him, 

55  And  ran«  through  that  whole  region  round  about, 
and  began  to  carry  about  in  beds  those  that  were  sick, 
where  they  heard  he  was. 

56  And  whithersoever  he  entered,  into  villages,  or 
cities,  or  country,  they  laid  the  sick  in  the  streets,  and 
besought  him  that  they  might  touch,/  if  it  were  but 
the  bordeiT'  of  his  garment:  and  as  many  as  touched 
him  were  made  whole. 


50  and  cried  out:  for  they  all  saw  him,  and  were  trou- 
bled, but  he  straightway  spake  with  them,  and 
saiih  unto  them,  t.e  of  good  cheer:  it  is  I ;  be  not 

51  afraid.  And  he  went  up  unto  them  into  the  boat; 
and  the  wind  ceased:  and  they  were  sore  amazed  in 

52  themselves ;  for  they  understood  not  concerning  the 
loaves,  but  their  heart  was  hardened. 

53  And  when  they  had  'crossed  over,  they  came  to 
the  land  unto  Oennesaret,  and  moored  to  the  shore. 

54  And  when  they  were  come  out  of  the  boat,  straight- 

55  way  the  people  knew  him,  and  ran  round  about  that 
whole  region,  and  began  to  carry  about  on  their 
-beds  those  that  were  sick,  where  they  heard  he  was. 

56  And  wheresoever  he  entered,  into  villages,  or  into 
cities,  or  into  the  country,  they  laid  the  sick  in  the 
marketplaces,  and  besought  him  that  they  misht 
touch  if  it  were  but  the  border  of  his  garment :  and 
as  many  as  touched  -shini  were  made  whole. 


a  Isa.  43:'i...  6  Ps.  9S  :  3,  4 c  Isa.  63  :  17 d  Matt.  1*  :  34 e  ch.  2  : 1-3  ;  Matt.  4  :  24 /  ch.  5  :  27,  28;  Matt.  9  :  20;  Acts 

19  :  VJ.....g  Num.  15  :  38,  39. 1  Or,  crossed  over  to  the  land,  they  came  unto  Gennesaret 2  Or,  pallets. . . .3,  Or,  it 


iial  sensibility!  They  thought  it  was,  not  a 
spirit,  but  "  a  spectre,"  a  phantasm,  an  appa- 
rition, and  tliey  cried  out. — For  they  all  saw 
him — the  reminiscence  of  an  eye-witness ;  pe- 
culiar to  Mark — and  were  troubled.  No 
recognition ;  no  inference  of  faitli  from  the 
fact  that  "  Jesus  was  not  yet  come  to  them " 
and  might  be  expected;  no  thought  tliat  he 
might  in  tlie  kindne-ss  of  his  heart  come  in  the 
only  possible  way,  by  miraculous  power. — His 
appearing  brought  them  only  the  instinctive 
terror  that  is  awakened  by  the  thought  of  an 
apparition.  They  had  failed  to  stand  the  test; 
but  his  heart — how  gentle  and  patient ! — sprang 
up  to  cheer  tliem  even  in  this  needless  terror. 
His  heart  must  have  been  saddened,  but  im- 
mediately he  talked  with  them  in  the  sim- 
plest and  most  unobtrusive  language  of  reas- 
surance.— Wonderful  language  of  self-assertion 
indeed  it  is,  declaring  his  power  over  nature; 
yet  he  who  walks  on  the  waves  and  is  Master 
of  the  storm  speaks  assuringly  to  those  who 
have  trusted  him,  and  says,  Be  of  good  cheer : 
it  is  I,  whom  you  know  so  well;  it  is  only  I, 
of  whom  you  have  no  reason  to  be  afraid.  Tlie 
tenderness,  the  intimacy  of  heart  with  his 
friends,  the  desire  to  be  recognized  in  his  love, 
is  far  greater  in  this  than  the  self-assertion. 

Matthew  here  inserts  the  episode  of  Peter's 
walking  on  the  water.  He  had  failed  under  a 
test  of  his  Master's  choosing,  and  now,  partly 
for  that  very  reason,  he  was  taken  with  the 
idea  of  putting  his  faith  to  this  test  of  his  own 
choosing.  Of  course  he  must  fail  again.  If 
Mark's  Gospel  is  virtually  Peter's,  the  omission 
of  this  incident  is  quite  in  character.  On  the 
one  hand,  this  Gospel  omits  to  record  the  high 
honor  that  was  put  upon  Peter  after  his  great 
confession  (Mutt.  i6: 17-19),  wliich  corresponds  to 
godly  humility ;   on  the  other,  it  records  the 


rebuke  that  was  administered  just  after  to 
Peter  (Mark  8:  32, 33),  wliich  corresponds  to  godly 
honesty.  But,  as  for  this  walking  on  the  water, 
it  was  an  episode  that  Peter  would  naturally  be 
willing  to  forget,  and  that  might  be  omitted  with- 
out any  dishonor  to  his  Master,  and  so  he  might 
pass  it  by. 

51,  52.  The  wind  ceased.  Literally, 
"grew  weary."  The  same  word  as  in  chap. 
4  :  39,  when  he  had  rebuked  the  wind,  and 
used  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament. 
Here  there  is  no  mention  of  any  rebuke. — 
The  amazement  of  the  apostles  is  condemned 
in  verse  52 — which  is  peculiar  to  Mark — as  the 
amazement  of  unbelief.  The  miracle  that  they 
had  witnessed,  if  nothing  else,  ought  to  have 
taught  them  better,  yet  they  did  not  understand 
it. — Their  heart  was  hardened,  not  by  the 
influence  of  Jesus  or  by  any  divine  power. 
"  They  understood  not  concerning  the  loaves," 
yet  they  had  counted  them  and  knew  how 
many  they  were;  they  had  distributed  them 
and  knew  how  many  they  had  fed ;  they  had 
gathered  the  fragments  of  them  and  knew 
how  many  baskets  they  filled.  Knowledge 
may  be  mathematically  correct,  and  yet  not 
be  "  understanding." 

53-56.  Gennesaret  was  the  name  of  the  plain 
that  lay  on  the  western  side  of  the  lake  and 
gave  to  the  lake  its  name;  Capernaum  .stood 
probably  near  the  north  end  of  it.  It  was  an 
extremely  fertile  plain,  and  was  then  one  of  the 
most  populous  regions  in  the  land.  The  spot 
at  which  the  company  of  Jesus  reached  the 
shore  is  not  specified,  but  the  natural  impres- 
sion is  that  it  was  not  at  Capernaum  or  at  any 
other  of  the  large  towns.— In  tJicse  verses  we 
have  an  intensely  vivid  description  of  the  eager- 
ness with  which  the  great  Healer  was  received. 
The  people  recognized  him,  fully  believed  in 


Ch.  VII.] 


MARK. 


97 


CHAPTER    VII. 


THEN  came"  together  unto  him  the  Pharisees,  and 
certain  of  the  scribes,  which  came  from  Jerusalem. 

2  And  wlieii  they  saw  some  of  liis  disciples  eat  bread 
with  defiled  that  is  to  say,  with  unwashen)  hands,  they 
found  fault. 

;{  For  the  i'liarisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they 
wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition''  of 
the  elders. 

4  And  iche.n  they  come  from  the  market,  except  they 
wash,"'  they  cat  not.  And  many  other  things  there  be, 
which  they  have  received  to  hold,  i/.v  the  washing  of 
cups,  and  pots,  and  brasen  vessels,  and  of  tables. 


1  And  there  are  gathered  together  unto  him  the 
Pharisees,  and  certain  of  the  scribes,  that  had  come 

2  from  Jerusalem,  and  had  seen  that  some  of  his  dis- 
ciples ate  their  bread  with  'defiled,  that  is,  unwashen, 

3  hands.  For  the  Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except 
they  wash  their  hands  -diligently,  eat  not,  holding 

4  the  tradition  of  the  elders:  and  iviien  they  cimie  from 
the  marketplace,  exce|)t  they  ^bathe  themselves,  they 
eat  not:  and  many  other  things  there  are,  which 
they  have  received  to  hold,  ■•washings  of  cups,  and 


a  Matt.  15  ;  1....6  Gal.  1  :  14;  Col.  2:8,  22,  2.3 c  Job  9  :  .10.  31. 1  Or,  common 2  Or,  up  to  the.  eltioio    Gr.  witli  theftst 3  Gr. 

bapttze.    Some  aDcieot  authoritic:*  read  sprinkte  themKelvea t  Gr.  baptixings. 


liis  power  to  heal,  and  instantly  availed  them- 
selves of  Ills  presence.  I'eculiarities  of  Mark 
in  this  swiftly-drawn  picture :  That  the  boat 
"  moored  to  the  shore,"  not  merely  drew  to 
the  shore;  that  the  people  ran  through 
that  whole  region  round  about  (Matthew, 
"sent'i:  that  they  began  to  carry  about  in 
beds  those  that  were  sick,  where  they 
heard  he  was  (  Matthew,  "  they  i)r()ti.:,ditti)  him 
all  that  were  sick");  that  whithersoever  he 
entered,  into  villages,  or  cities,  or  coun- 
try, they  laid  the  sick  in  the  streets,  or 
"  market-places."  Scarcely  anywhere  do  Mark's 
greater  vividness  and  fulness  of  detail  ajipear 
more  strikingly  than  in  this  passage.  Such  a 
remembrance  can  have  come  only  from  an 
intensely  interested  eye-witness. — Tlie  entreaty 
for  permission  to  touch  tlie  border  of  his  gar- 
ment may  be  an  indication  of  the  popular 
effect  of  the  secret  miracle  in  the  crowd  (cimp. 
4:25-34)  when  once  the  story  liad  gone  abroad. 
Tliis  activity  is  said  to  have  begun  as  soon  as 
Jesus  landed,  but  this  description  relates,  prob- 
ably, to  the  work  of  more  than  one  day.  On 
that  first  day  he  went  to  Capernaum  and  de- 
livered in  the  synagogue  his  great  discourse  on 
the  bread  of  life.  Probably  it  was  not  the  Sab- 
batli,  for  then  this  great  activity  in  collecting 
the  sick  would  not  have  occurred,  or,  if  it 
had,  would  have  been  at  once  and  openly 
condemned. 

1-23.  .TESUS  CONFUTES  THE  PHAR- 
ISEES, WHO  COMPLAIN  OF  HIS  DIS- 
CIPLES FOR  EATING  WITH  UNWASHEN 
HANDS.  I'linilM,  Matt.  15  :  1-20.— Luke  makes 
no  rejiort  of  this  discourse,  but  he  records  a 
similar  one  delivered  in  a  Pharisee's  house  in 
Pemca  at  a  later  time  (i-ukc  ii :  37-42).  That  dis- 
course resembled  this  in  its  occasion  and  be- 
ginning, but  it  went  on  to  a  different  ap- 
plication. 

1-4.  The  ])lace  is  still  Capernaum.  Which 
came  from  Jerusalem.  Literally,  "  having 
come."      The  scribes  and  Pharisees  who   are 


j  mentioned   here  are  probably  Galila^ans  who 
had  been  at  Jerusalem  and  had  just  returned 
j  thence.     The  definite  article  is  wanting  before 
the  participle.   Its  presence  would  indicate  that 
they  were  a  delegation  from  the  cajtital;  but 
;  probably  these  were  Galiliean  religionists,  who, 
{  returning  from  Jerusalem,  perhaps  after  con- 
j  sulfation   there,    made  it  their  first   work    to 
j  "come  together  to  Jesus"   and  see  what  he 
j  was   doing. — They  saw  some   of  his   dis- 
ciples eat  bread  with  defiled  —  literally, 
with   common — hands.     With   hands   in  the 
ordinary  state.     Not  "  with  dirty  hands" — that 
was  not  the  point  of  objection — but  with  hands 
unwashen,  not  ceremonially  ptiritied  accord- 
ing to  their  ideas  of  necessity. — Some  of  his 
disciples  were  doing  thus,  not  all  of  them— 
an  indicati<jn  that  he  had  given  them  teaching 
that  would  render  them  indifferent  to  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Pharisees  in  this  matter,  but  tliat 
only  a  part  of  them  liad  yet  been  freed  from 
their  scruples  on  the  subject. — Verses  3,  4  are 
parenthetical,  and  the  best  manuscripts  insert 
an  "and"  at  the  beginning  of  verse  5,  which 
disturbs    the    grammatical    construction    and 
makes  a  broken    sentence.     This   led  copyists 
to  add  they  found  fault  in  veree  2,  to  com- 
plete the  structure ;  but  the  ad(htion  is  cancelled 
by  all  the  chief  editors  of  the  text. 

Tlie  i)arenthetical  passage  (verses  3,  4)  is 
wholly  pectiliar  to  Mark,  and  is  devoted  to 
the  exi)lanation,  for  the  benefit  of  CJentile 
readers,  of  the  cust<im  of  the  Pliarisees,  shared 
by  the  Jews  in  general,  al>out  ceremonial  ( leans- 
ings.  The  Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews. 
A  loose  i)opular  exi)re.ssion  to  show  that  this 
custom  of  the  Pharisees  was  widely  received; 
not  to  be  pressed,  as  if  it  declareil  absolute 
unanimity.  Many,  of  course,  had  no  time  for 
these  ])ractices,  and  the  Pharisees  desjjised  all 
who  neglected  them  for  that  reasoii.  or  for  any 
other,  and  thought  there  was  scarcely  a  hope 
for  them.  (See  John  7  :  4!)  for  an.  utterance  of 
this  feeling.) — Except  they  wash  theirhands 
oft,  or  diligently,  pugme.    LLtertilly,  ."with  the 


98 


MARK 


[Ch.  VII. 


5  Then  the  Pharisees  and  scribes  asked  him,  Why 
■walk  not  thy  disciples  according  to  the  tradition  of 
the  elders,  but  eat  bread  with  unwashen  hands? 

G  He  answered  and  said  unto  them.  Well  hath  Esaias 
prophesied"  of  you  hypocrites,  as  it  is  written.  This 
people  honored  me  with  their  lips,  but  their  heart  is 
far  from  me. 

7  Howlieit,  in  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men. 


5  pots,  and  brasen  vessels. i  And  the  Pharisees  and 
the  scribes  ask  him,  Why  walk  not  tliy  disciples 
according  to   the   tradition   of  the   elders,  but  eat 

6  their  bread  with  ^defiled  hands?  And  he  said  unto 
them,  Well  did  Isaiah  prophesy  of  you  hypocrites, 
as  it  is  written. 

This  people  honoreth  me  with  their  lips, 
But  their  heart  is  far  from  me. 

7  But  in  vain  do  they  worship  me, 

Teaching  as  their  doctrines  the  precepts  of  men. 


-1  Many  ancient  authorities  add  and  couches 2  Or, 


fist."  Probably  descriptive  of  the  washing  of  one 
hand  by  rubbing  it  with  the  other.  The  Sina- 
itic  Manuscript  alone  has pukna,  "frequently," 
which  Tischendorf  alone  among  editors  adopts. 
— And  Avhen  they  come  from  the  market, 
where  in  the  crowd  defilement  might  most 
easily  be  contracted.^Except  they  wash, 
they  eat  not.  The  word  is  baptizo,  can  me 
baptisontai.  So  in  Luke  11  :  38  the  Pharisee 
wondered  that  Jesus  had  not  first  bathed  him- 
self {cbaptinihe)  before  dinner.  It  is  not  the 
baptizing  of  their  hands,  but  of  themselves, 
or,  strictly,  the  being  baptized  or  bathed,  that 
was  thus  insisted  upon.  The  word  "baptize" 
is  used  precisely  as  in  2  Kings  5  :  14,  where  it 
is  said  of  Naaman,  "  He  dipped  himself  seven 
times  in  Jordan."  From  the  strict  literal  sig- 
nification, to  "immerse"  or  "submerge,"  it 
comes  naturally  in  certain  connections  to  ac- 
quire the  sense  "  to  wash  by  immersing,"  "  to 
cleanse,"  of  course  only  in  cases  where  the 
dipping  is  into  clean  water.  (So  Grimm,  N.  T. 
Lexicon.)  "  Bathe"  is  an  admissible  tran.slation 
in  this  connection,  and  any  difficulties  about 
giving  the  word  its  proper  meaning  here  are 
purely  imaginary.  In  verse  4  the  word  for 
"washings,"  in  washings  of  cnps,  etc.,  is 
from  the  same  root,  bnptismons,  a  derivative 
of  baptizo.  But  it  is  not  the  word  that  is  used 
to  denote  the  Christian  rite,  which  is  a  neuter 
word,  baptisma,  while  this  is  masculine,  a  form 
that  is  found  only  here  and  in  Heb.  G  :  2 ; 
9  :  10.  Its  signification  is  properly  given  by 
Liddell  and  Scott,  in  their  Greek  and  English 
Lexicon,  "  a  dipping  in  water."  It  indicates 
sometimes,  in  certain  connections,  a  thorough 
cleansing  by  water,  which  would  naturally  be 
made,  in  the  case  of  the  objects  liere  mention- 
ed, by  dipping,  according  to  the  literal  signifi- 
cation of  the  word.  The  cups  {poteria)  were 
drinking-cups. — As  for  the  pots,  the  Greek 
word  xestai  is  a  corruption  of  the  Latin  scx- 
tuarius,  a  pot  that  held  about  a  pint.  These 
were  ordinarily  wooden  vessels. — The  brasen 
— or  properly  bronze — vessels  were  for  sim- 
ilar purposes  with  the  wooden.  The  law  pro- 
vided, at  least  in  certain  cases  of  defilement, 


that  earthen  vessels  should  be  broken,  and 
that  wooden  ones  should  be  rinsed  in  water 
(Lev.  13:12). — The  word  translated  tables  (kVmon) 
cannot  possibly  mean  that;  it  is  "beds"  or 
"  couches,"  and  may  refer  to  the  platforms  on 
which  they  reclined  around  the  table,  which 
must  often  be  thoroughly  washed  for  fear  of 
defilement,  or  to  the  cushions,  which  would 
need  washing  quite  as  much,  and  very  likely 
would  be  washed  oftener.  But  the  words 
and  of  tables  are  omitted  by  some  good 
manuscripts,  by  Tischendorf,  and  by  tlie  re- 
visers. 

The  greater  part  of  these  minute  require- 
ments lay  outside  of  the  Mosaic  law.  These 
things,  Mark  says,  they  have  received  to 
hold  ;  and  they  do  them  holding  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  elders,  the  interpretations  and 
supplements  of  the  law,  brought  down  orally 
from  the  men  of  an  earlier  time.  Tradition 
was  the  ecclesiastical  version  of  tlie  law — the 
law  as  it  came  out  of  the  hands  of  the  great 
teachers.  It  was  regarded  as  equally  author- 
itative with  the  written  law  itself,  and,  by 
some,  more  so.  It  was  the  very  life  and  mis- 
sion of  the  Pharisees  to  keep  the  traditional 
interpretations  in  full  force.  (See  F'arrar,  Life 
of  Christ,  2.  471.)  Whoever  reads  such  de- 
scriptions as  are  given  by  Farrar  and  Geikie 
of  the  ingenious  wickedness  with  which  this 
was  attempted  will  not  wonder  at  the  denun- 
ciations of  our  Lord  or  be  surprised  that  the 
Pharisees  were  his  natural  enemies.  This  was 
a  part  of  the  bondage  from  which  he  came  to 
set  men  free. 

5-7.  Of  course  they  must  call  him  to  ac- 
count, and  not  the  disciples — the  rabbi,  not 
the  pupils.  He  and  they  were  reproved  often- 
er for  neglecting  the  traditions  than  for  depart- 
ing from  the  genuine  law.  His  cjuotation  in 
reply  is  almost  verbally  exact  from  Isa.  29  :  13 
in  the  LXX.,  the  sole  variation— teaching  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men,  in- 
stead of  "teaching  doctrines  and  command- 
ments of  men  "^being  identical  in  Matthew 
and  Mark.  Traditionalism  has  met  him  in  its 
extreme  form,  and  he  does  not  miss  his  oppor- 


Ch.  VIL] 


MARK. 


99 


8  For  laying"  aside  the  coniinandnient  of  God,  ye 
hold  the  tradition  of  men,  «.<  the  washing  of  pots  and 
cups:  and  many  other  sueli  like  things  yc  do. 

9  And  he  said  unto  them.  Full  well  ye  reject  the 
commandment  of  (jod,  that  ye  may  keep  your  own 
tradition. 

lu  For  Moses  said,  Honor  'thy  father  and  thy  mo- 
ther; and.  Whoso  curseth'  father  or  mother,  let  him 
die  the  death. 

11  Hut  ye  say,  If  a  man  shall  say  to  his  father,  It  is 
Corban,''  "that  is  to  say,  a  gift,  by  whatsoever  thou 
mightest  be  profited  by  me:  he  shall  be  free. 


8  Ye  leave  the  commandment  of  God,  and  hold  fast  the 

9  tradition  of  men.  And  he  said  unto  then\,  1-  uU  well 
do  ye  reject  the  commandment  of  God,  that  ye  may 

10  keep  your  tradition.  For  .Moses  said,  Honor  ihy 
father  and  thy  mother;  and.  He  that  speaketh  evil 

11  of  father  or  mother,  let  him  ^die  the  death:  but  ye 
say.  If  a  man  shall  say  to  his  father  or  his  mother. 
That  wherewith  thou  mightest  have  been  profited 


a  Isa.  1  :  12 6  Kx.  20: 12;  Deut.  5  :  16 c  Ex.  21 :  17  ;  Lev.  20:9;  Prov.  20  :  20 d  Malt.  15:5;  23  :  IS.- 


-1  Or,  furehj  dit 


tiinity  to  scorch  it  with  the  fire  of  his  wrath. — 
Perhaps  the  tone  of  indignation  is  even  stronger 
in  ^hitthew  than  in  Mark.  Well  hath  Esaias 
prophesied  of  you  hypocrites — i.  c.  concern- 
ing such  hypocrites  as  yon,  in  his  own  age  or 
in  any  otlicr.  He  condemned  outward  wor- 
ship without  heart,  the  profession  of  the  lips 
with  no  inward  devotion  or  obedience. — Isaiah 
was  full  of  snch  denunciations  (as  cliap.  1  :  11- 
20),  and  so  were  all  the  prophets.  Often,  as 
here,  they  declared  that  it  was  in  vain;  it 
was  empty,  fruitless  work ;  it  went  for  noth- 
ing. Besides  the  hcartlessness,  and  as  another 
reason  for  rejecting  such  worship,  God  con- 
demns tlie  foisting  upon  his  religion  of  human 
tiaditions  and  commandments.  His  worsliip 
must  be  upon  the  basis  of  liis  own  require- 
ments, and  no  human  arrangement  may  take 
its  place  beside  wliat  he  has  appointed.  Tlie 
introduction  of  human  tradition  was  the  point 
in  wliicli  the  passage  from  Isaiali  was  directly 
applicable  to  the  Pliarisees. 

8.  For  should  be  omitted  at  the  beginning 
of  this  verse,  and  so  sliould  as  the  washing 
of  pots  and  enps  :  and  many  other  such 
like  things  ye  do,  at  the  end.  Sd  this  strong 
statement  stands  ;iluiu':  laying  aside  for  leav- 
ing) the  commandment  of  God,  ye  hold 
the  tradition  of  men.  He  charges  them, 
iiDt  with  addition,  liut  with  sub.stitution.  They 
have  forsaken  command  for  tradition,  God  for 
men.  The  elders  are  their  chief  authority,  not 
Moses  or  Jehovah;  they  are  not  serving  God. 
So,  in  spirit,  Jcr.  2  :  12,  13.  The  rebuke  is 
there  for  idolatry  ;  but  in  the  sight  of  God  the 
sin  of  the  Pliarisees  was  as  heinous  as  that. 

9.  And  he  said  unto  them  probably  indi- 
cates a  break  in  the  discoui-se;  catised,  per- 
haps, by  indignant  interruptions,  or  by  a  call 
for  particulars  to  illustrate  so  broad  and  fearful 
a  charge.  So  their  ancestors  asked,  "  Wherein 
liave  we  despised  thy  name?"  (Mai.  i :  6;  3:8,  is). 
— Whether  called  for  or  not,  he  was  ready  with 
particulars  to  illustrate  the  substitution  of  tra- 
dition for  command.  Full  well — /.  e.  finely, 
Dcautifully,  admirably— ye  reject  the  com- 


mandment of  God,  that  ye  may  keep 
your  own  tradition.  The  adverb  is  the 
same  as  in  verse  G :  "  Well  hath  Isaiah  proph- 
esied of  you."  The  rejjetition  is  intentional, 
and  the  word  this  time  is  scathingly  ironical : 
"  Admirably  do  yoti  ftilfil  the  word  that  Isaiah 
so  admirably  spoke  concerning  you."  Tlie 
holy  indignation  is  thoroughly  arou.sed,  and 
he  cares  not  how  heavily  he  hiys  on  the  lash. 
10-13.  Yet  his  first  illustration  is  not  the 
one  that  called  out  the  (juestion.  Instead  of 
beginning  with  the  traditions  respecting  defile- 
ments by  contact  and  the  necessary  cleansings, 
he  goes  at  once  to  the  Decalogtie,  and  convicts 
them  of  setting  aside  the  fundamental  law 
of  God  to  Israel.  Moses  said,  Honor  thy 
father  and  thy  mother.  An  exact  quo- 
tation from  the  LXX.  of  Ex.  20  :  12.  — He 
adds  a  second  extract,  giving  the  same  law  as 
expounded  and  ap]ilicd  in  the  legislation  of 
Mo.ses.  Whoso  curseth  father  or  mother, 
let  him  die  the  death.  Eni])hatic  way  of 
saying,  "  Let  him  die."  Ex.  21  :  17  quoted  al- 
luo.st  exactly  from  the  LXX.  Both  passages 
are  quoted  from  what  Moses  said,  l)ut  both 
are  adduced  as  the  commandment  of  God 
(verse  9)  and  the  word  of  God  (verseu).  Thus, 
Jesus  recognizes  the  Mosaic  legislation  as  the 
law  of  his  Father;  and  not  merely  tlie  milder 
parts  of  it,  but  even  the  provision  for  the  ex- 
ecution of  the  disobedient  and  insulting  child. 
This  he  brings  forward  as  a  part  of  that  law 
that  he  has  come  "  not  to  destroy,  but  to  ful- 
fil " — i.  e.  to  exliibit  and  establish  in  the  ful- 
ness of  its  spiritual  meaning.  The  principle 
of  honor  to  parents  he  recognizes  as  of  per- 
petual and  universal  force,  and  he  intends  to 
set  u]i  for  universal  obedience  and  reverence 
the  truth  that  was  lionored  by  the  Mosaic  pro- 
vision of  death  for  the  disobedient.  Incident- 
ally, his  mode  of  citing  the  second  passage  is 
itself  exegetical.  Viewed  in  the  light  of  the 
context,  that  passage  must  mean  that  the 
spirit  of  the  prohibition  can  be  violated  with- 
out a  profane  or  blasphemous  word,  and  that 
not  to  bless  parents  by  such  care  as  a  child 


100 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VII. 


12  And  ye  suffer  him  no  more  to  do  ought  for  his 
father  or  his  mother; 

lo  Making  the  word  of  God  of  none  effect  through 
your  tradition,  which  ye  liave  delivered :  and  many 
such  like  things  do  ye. 

14  1i  And  when  he  had  called  all  the  people  vnto  him, 
he  said  unto  them,  Hearken  unto  me  every  one  of  you, 
and  understand :" 

15  There  is  nothing  from  without  a  man  that,  enter- 
ing into  him,  can  defile  him  :  but  the  things  which 
come  out  of  him,  those  are  they  that  defile  the  man. 

16  If  any  hnan  have  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear. 


12 by  me  is  Corban,  that  is  to  say.  Given  lo  God;  ye  no 
longer  suffer  him  to  do  aught  for  his  father  or  his 

13 mother;  making  void  the  word  of  God  by  your  tra- 
dition, wliich  ye  have  delivered  ;  and  many  such  like 

14  things  ye  do.  And  he  called  to  him  the  multitude 
again,  and  said  unto  them,  Hear  me  all  of  you,  and 

15  understand :  there  is  nothing  from  without  the  man, 
that  going  into  him  can  defile  him :  but  the  things 
which  proceed  out  of  the  man  are  those  that  defile 


I  Prov.  8:5;  Isa.  6  :  9 :  Acts  8  :  30 h  Matt.  11 :  15. 


can  give  is  to  curse  them,  according  to  the  true 
intent  of  this  law.  Such,  then,  is  tlie  "  com- 
mandment of  God"  respecting  parents:  tliey 
must  be  treated  witli  honor,  and  no  one  is  at 
liberty  to  withhold  from  them  wliat  blessing 
he  can  give. — But  now  for  the  tradition  of 
men  resj^ecting  parents  which  the  Pharisees 
are  diligently  keeping.  Translate  verses  11, 
12,  "  But  ye  say.  If  a  man  say  to  his  father  or 
mother,  Whatever  thou  mightest  receive  in 
aid  from  me  is  Corban,  that  is,  a  gift  (to  God), 
ye  no  longer  permit  him  to  do  anything  for 
his  father  or  mother."  Corban  is  a  Hebrew 
word  meaning  gift,  but  ai)propriated  to  use 
with  reference  to  sacred  gifts,  acts  of  devotion 
to  the  service  of  God.  The  simple  uttering 
of  the  word  Corban — "  Sacred  gift " — over  a 
thing  was  supposed  to  set  that  thing  apart 
from  all  ordinary  uses  and  give  it  the  character 
of  a  consecrated  thing.  (See  Ewald,  Antiquities 
of  Israel^  p.  81.)  Now,  Jesus  affirms  that  they 
apply  this  mode  of  consecration  to  the  unholy 
purpose  of  escaping  duty  to  parents.  If  a  man 
utters  the  magical  word  "  Corban "  over  his 
relation  to  his  parents,  and  so  declares  that  it 
is  devoted  to  God,  he  is  no  longer  held  under 
obligation  to  them.  The  "  Corban  "  carries  no 
real  consecration  to  God  in  such  a  case ;  it  gives 
no  new  character  to  the  man's  life  :  it  is  only  a 
fictitious  arrangement  for  releasing  him  from  a 
duty  that  has  become  irksome.  Thus  the  tra- 
dition of  men  enables  them  to  annul  or  vir- 
tually repeal  the  commandment  of  God.  The 
liberty  which  the  tradition  gives  tliem  is  more 
agreeable  to  their  selfish  hearts  than  the  duty 
to  which  the  commandment  binds  them  ;  and 
so  they  set  aside  the  commandment,  in  order 
that  they  may  keep  the  tradition.  To  accept 
such  a  tradition  was  to  detlirone  Jehovah.  (See 
Prov.  28  :  24.)  One  is  reminded  here  of  Luther's 
sore  conflict  as  to  whether  the  monastic  vow 
which  was  urged  upon  him  was  consistent 
with  his  duty  to  his  aged  father,  and  of  in- 
numerable similar  cases  in  the  long  history  of 
monasticism.  True  consecration  is  not  the  es- 
cajnng  from  obligations,  but  the  reacceptance 


of  all  genuine  duty  from  the  hands  of  God. 
Consecration  to  God  never  releases  from  duty 
to  man.  He  who  consents  to  an  obligation  to 
God  thereby  consents  to  all  obligations  that 
God  has  placed  upon  him.  To  suppose  the  con- 
trary, as  these  men  did,  is  to  trifle  with  all  obli- 
gation.— Making  the  word  of  God  of  none 
etfect  through  your  tradition.  The  word 
translated  making  of  none  effect  (akurowiteK) 
is  found  in  the  New  Testament  onlj^  in  tliis  dis- 
course and  at  Gal.  3  :  17  :  it  means  "to  deprive 
of  authority  or  lordship,"  and  so,  of  a  law,  "to 
annul."  It  implies  more  than  neglect :  it  tells 
of  actual  nullification. — And  many  such  like 
things  do  ye,  which  is  not  genuine  in  verse  8, 
is  genuine  here,  and  may  possibly  be  the  re- 
porter's summary  of  a  further  discourse,  in 
which  other  abuses  of  a  similar  kind  were 
treated  as  sharply  as  the  intrusion  of  "Cor- 
ban" to  the  family.  The  subsequent  discourse 
seems  to  imply  that  something  had  been  said 
at  this  very  time  of  the  distinction  between 
clean  and  unclean  food.  There  were  abuses 
enough  within  reach  to  justify  a  long  and  ter- 
rible discourse. 

14-16.  The  calling  of  the  people  who  were, 
within  reach  (the  best  text  omits  all)  was  a 
sign  that  he  had  something  of  special  weight 
to  utter.  Perhaps  the  word  "  again,"  which  is 
found  in  the  best  texts,  indicates  that  he  had 
withdrawn  from  the  multitude  for  this  confer- 
ence with  the  Pharisees  and  scribes,  or  tliat  it 
occurred  in  the  house  when  but  few  were  pres- 
ent.—Hearken  unto  me  every  one  of  you, 
and  understand.  Matthew,  simply  "  Hear 
and  understand  ;"  so  that  the  special  emphasis 
is  peculiar  to  Mark.  The  utterance  that  fol- 
lowed was  intentionally  enigmatical  — plain 
enough,  perhaps,  "to  him  that  understand- 
eth,"  but  reiiuiring  explanation  for  those  who 
were  then  about  him.  In  verse  17  it  is  called 
the  parable ;  and  there  is  scarcely  any  brief 
saying  of  our  Lord  that  better  illustrates,  by 
its  relation  to  the  hearers,  tlie  purpose  of  para- 
bolic instruction — to  call  attention  to  present 
truth  in  suggestive  forms,  and  yet  to  leave  the 


Ch.  VIL] 


MARK. 


101 


17  And  when  "he  was  entered  into  the  house  from 
the  people,  his  disciples  asked  him  concerning  the 
parable. 

18  And  he  saith  unto  them,  Are  ve  so  without  under- 
standing also?  Do  ye  not  perceive,  that  whatsoever 
thing  trom  without  entcreth  into  the  man,  it  cannot 
defile  him ; 

19  Because  it  entereth  not  into  his  heart,  but  'into 
the  belly,  and  goeth  out  into  the  draught,  purging  all 
meats  •>  •  <=     >  r      o     o 


1/  the  man.i  And  when  he  was  entered  into  the  house 
from  the  multitude,  his  disciples  asked  of  him  the 

18  parable.  And  he  saith  unto  them,  Arc  ye  so  with- 
out understanding  also?  Perceive  ye  not,  that  what- 

in'T^'i^''.^'""'".^'''"'""'^  eoeth  into  the  man,  U  cannot 

uaehle  him;  because  it  goeth  not  into  his  heart,  but 
into  his  belly,  and  goeth  out  into  the  draught?  ThU 


a  Matt.  15  :  15,  etc. . .  .i  1  Cor.  6  :  13.- 


-1  Many  ancient  authorities  Insert  ver.  16  If  any  man  hath  ear.  to  hear,  let  him  hear. 


apprehensiiin  of  it  contingent  in  part  upon  the 
spiritual   power  of  the   listener.      Jesus  mu.st 
certainly   have  been    aware    tiiat  this    saying 
would  place  him  in  apparent  opposition,' not 
only  to  the  traditional   interijretation   of  the 
law,  but  to  the  law  itself.     To  a  certain  extent 
the  opposition  would  be  real ;  yet  this  was  not 
to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.     He  had  it  in  mind  to 
uncover  the  trutli  which  the  law  had  lialf  re- 
vealed and  half  concealed,  and  wiiich  tradition 
had  gone  tiir  toward  concealing  altogether.— 
Instead   of  entering   into    him    and   come 
out  of  him,  as  in  JMark,  Matthew  has  "  enter- 
ing into  the  mouth  "  and  "coming  out  of  the 
moutli."     Tlic  general  statement  is  stronger  in 
Mark  than  in  Mattliew  ;  for  Matthew  says  only 
that  nothing  entering  into  a  man  defiles  hhn, 
wliile  .Mark  says  that  nothing  entering  into  a 
man  can  defile  him.     In  Mark  it  is  an  un- 
qualified  statement  of  the  complete  impossi- 
bility of  true  defilement  to  man   from   food, 
and  of  the  fact  that  all  real  defilement  pro- 
ceeds   from   within,   from    the    man    liimself 
Verse  IG  is  of  doubtful  manuscript  authority, 
and  should  probably  be  omitted. 

17.  Request  of  the  Disciples  for  Expla- 
N.\Tiox.— Mark  omits  wliat  Matthew  gives,  the 
somewliat  anxious  inquiry,  "  Knowest  thou 
that  the  Pharisees  were  offended  when  they 
heard  this  saying?"  which  showed  how  far  the  j 
di.sciples  yet  were  from  possessing  their  Mas- 
ter's fearlessness.  But  his  answer  must  have 
shown  even  them  that  he  had  nothing  of  their  | 
anxiety  about  offending  the  Tharisees  (See 
Matt.  15  :  12-14.)  After  that  answer,  Peter  (so 
m  Matthew)  asked  for  an  explanation  of  the 
>nigmatical  saying.  Mark  attributes  the  quas- 
■lon  to  his  disciples,  and  adds  that  it  was 
asked  in  the  house  in  tlie  absence  of  the  mul- 
titude.    Peter,  as  usual,  spoke  for  them  all. 

18,  19.  He  begins  with  a  reproof,  intimating 
that  they  at  Ica.st  ought  to  understand  him.  If 
he  had  detached  them,  even  in  part,  from  alle- 
giance to  the  Pharisaic  folly,  this  saving  ought 
not  to  be  dark  to  them.  Tlie  asserticm  here  is  [ 
that  whatever  is  of  the  nature  of  food  received  > 
into  the  body  is  unable  to  unjiart  real  defile-  | 


ment  to  the  man,  because  it  entereth  not 

into  his  heart,  the  seat  of  Ids  aflections,  but 
only  to  his  belly,  to  be  digested  and  cast  fortli 
in  excrementation.     The  word  heart  is  not 
used,  of  course,  in  its  physical  sense ;  the  belly 
and  the  heart  are  not  contrasted  as  two  bodily 
organs  or  regions.     The  heart  is  here  the  seat 
of  the  affections  and  the  centre  of  moral  life. 
Inasmuch  as  from  that  centre  proceeds  evil, 
the  heart  is  the  source  of  real  defilement,  and 
the  only  source  (verse  21).  With  such  a  centre  of 
moral  life  food  can  have  nothing  to  do,  for  it 
pa.sses  through  the  body  without  having  any 
opportunity  of  contact  with  the  moral  powers. 
Anything  that  is  truly  to  defile  a  man  must  be 
sucli  that  it  can  affect,  and  must  actually  affect, 
his  heart,  and  work  moral  evil  there.     This  is 
an  unecpiivocal   statement  that  the  only  real 
purity  and  impurity  are  moral.     What,  then, 
of  ceremonial  cleannesses  and  uncleannesscs,' 
not  merely  as  develojied  and  exaggerated  by 
the  tradition  of  men,  but  as  marked  out  by  the 
commandment  of  God  ?    Is  not  this  to  condemn 
the  whole  system  as  essentially  groundless,  and 
so  to  overthrow  the  Mosaic  law  ?   No.   The  Mo- 
saic laws  concerning  defilement  are  not  here 
condemned,  but  they  are  interpreted,  and  are 
referred  to  their  true  place.     If  there  is  no  de- 
filement but  moral  defilement,  then  any  defile- 
j  ment  that  is  supi)osed  to  be  contracted  from 
[  food,  or  in  any  similar  way,  must  be,  at  tlie 
most,  of  an  arbitrary  and  unreal  kind.     It  may 
with  perfect  proj)riety  be  recognized  as  having 
a  symbolic  meaning  and  an  illustrative  signif- 
icance, but  it  is  not  real  defilement,  and  must 
not  be  so  regarded.     Thus  the  ceremonial  de- 
filements that  are  recognized  by  the  Mosaic  law 
are  remanded  to  their  true  place,  as  belonging 
to  a  system  of  external  law  devised  for  a  tem- 
porary' purpose.     The  principle  is  that  of  Ileb. 
10  :  1 — that  in  the  Mosaic  ceremonial  the  eter- 
nal realities  are  not  presented,  but  represented; 
not  seen  in  substance,  but  in  shadow  ;  not  offer- 
ed to  men,  but  only  illustrated.     So  any  sup- 
posed defilement  from  food  may  be  used  to  il- 
lustrate the  true  defilement,  but  must  not  be 
confounded  with  it.— We  must  never  fail  to 


102 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VII. 


20  And  he  said,  That  which  cometh  out  of  the  man, 
that  defileth  the  man. 


20  he  .mid,  making  all  meats  clean.    And  he  said,  That 
which  proceedeth  out  of  the  man,  that  defileth  the 


notice  illustrations  of  Matt.  5  :  17 :  "I  am  not 
come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil ;"  and  this  is  one 
of  the  best  of  them.  Apparently  he  was  set- 
ting aside  a  great  class  of  provisions  in  the  an- 
cient law,  and  the  legalists  of  the  day  could  not 
fail  to  condemn  him  for  it ;  but  in  reality  he 
was  revealing  the  truth  of  which  the  law  had 
given  only  the  suggestion.  Men  had  long  been 
familiar  with  the  shadow  of  the  truth  concern- 
ing defilement,  and  he  was  now  showing  them 
the  substance,  the  body  of  truth  itself  Thus 
he  was  completing  or  fulfilling  the  law — ex- 
hibiting it  as  a  preparatory  disi-)ensation  by 
bringing  in  that  for  which  it  had  prepared. 
And  here,  as  everywhere,  he  led  men  to  the 
fundamental  principle,  that  all  real  good  and 
evil  dwell  in  the  heart.  "  God  is  a  Spirit,  and 
they  that  worship  him  must  worship  him  in 
siDirit  and  in  truth." 

The  last  clause  of  verse  19,  purging  all 
meats,  or  "making  all  meats  clean,"  has  oc- 
casioned great  diflficulty.  The  clause  is  peculiar 
to  Mark.  In  the  received  text  the  participle 
(katharizon)  was  neuter;  but  all  recent  editors 
of  the  text  agree  that  it  should  be  masculine 
ylcatharizon).  With  the  old  reading  there  Avas 
no  better  way  than  to  make  the  neuter  parti- 
cij^le  refer  to  the  action  represented  by  the  pre- 
ceding verb,  and  tlien  the  statement  would  be 
that  the  separation  of  food,  within  the  body, 
into  that  which  the  body  used  and  tliat  which 
the  body  rejected  rendered  all  kinds  of  food 
clean.  With  the  present  reading  many  Iiave 
attempted  to  make  the  masculine  participle 
refer  to  draught,  or  "  drain,"  whicli  they  con- 
ceive of  as  the  logical  subject,  though  not  in 
the  nominative  case ;  and  they  still  retain  the 
idea  tliat  tlie  separation  of  the  food  by  means 
of  the  drain  that  receives  the  excrements  is 
that  which  renders  all  food  clean :  so  Alford 
and  Meyer.  But  tliere  is  no  authority  for  mak- 
ing "  clean  "  mean  "available  for  the  body,"  and 
"  unclean  "  "  unavailable  for  the  body,"  as  this 
interpretation  does.  Moreover,  it  is  hard  to  see 
how  this  interpretation  accords  with  the  reason 
tliat  our  Lord  has  just  given  why  food  cannot 
defile  a  man.  Because  food  enters  not  to  tlie 
heart,  he  says,  it  has  no  power  to  defile ;  there- 
fore there  can  he  no  need  of  any  physical  pro- 
cess of  separation  to  remove  its  defiling  parts. 
It  lias  no  defiling  parts. 

Far  better  is  the  interpretation  happily  adopt- 
ed by  the  revisers,  which  refers  the  participle 
back  to  tlie  subject  of  the  sentence — i.  e.  the 


speaker,  Jesus:  "This  he  said,  making  all 
meats  clean  " — i.  e.  declaring  by  this  utterance 
that  all  kinds  of  food  are  essentially  clean.  It 
is  true  that  such  an  expression  is  unparalleled  in 
Mark's  style,  and  that  the  order  of  the  words  is, 
as  Farrar  says,  "  a  serious  stumbling-block ;"  but 
these  difficulties  are  much  less  than  those  that 
beset  the  other  interpretation.  This  is  confirm- 
ed, moreover,  by  certain  coincidences  with  the 
story  of  Peter's  vision  at  Joppa  (acis  io:15;  n  :9). 
There,  and  there  alone  in  the  New  Testament 
(see  Grimm's  Lexicon),  the  word  katharizo  is 
used  in  the  sense  required  by  this  interpreta- 
tion, "to  declare  clean:"  "What  God  hath 
cleansed,  that  call  not  thou  common."  Peter 
was  the  sole  source  of  information  concerning 
that  vision,  and  from  Peter's  memorj-,  probably, 
came  to  Mark  the  report  of  this  discourse.  Mark 
alone  preserves  this  saying,  "  making  all  meats 
clean."  Peter  may  not  have  perceived  the  full 
effect  of  this  discourse  upon  the  distinctions  of 
food  until  new  light  had  been  brought  to  his 
mind  by  the  vision  at  Joppa,  which,  though  it 
had  a  further  purpose,  turned  upon  this  very 
thought,  tliat  food  has  no  defiling  power.  After 
that  vision  it  may  have  flashed  upon  him  that 
in  this  discourse  the  Lord  had  already  abolish- 
ed the  distinctions  that  had  been  troubling  his 
mind,  and  his  clear  jiercejjtion  may  have  regis- 
tered itself,  so  to  speak,  in  this  terse  and  striking 
comment  upon  the  utterance  that  he  had  not 
before  understood.  Evidently,  this  final  clause 
is  a  true  comment  or  summary.  Verse  15  had 
already  declared  the  intrinsic  impossibility  of 
real  defilement  from  food,  and  so  had  cleansed 
all  meats.  The  suspicion  of  the  Pharisees  that 
in  all  such  matters  a  new  era  would  come  if 
Jesus  had  his  way  was  incorrect  only  in  being 
inadequate.  Yet  whoever  should  proclaim  the 
abolition  of  ceremonial  defilements  by  divine 
authority  would  fulfil  the  law,  not  destroy  it. 
"If  Moses  conies  to  judge  me,"  said  Luther, 
"  I  will  motion  him  away  in  God's  name,  and 
say,  '  Here  stands  Christ.'  And  at  the  last  day 
Moses  will  look  on  me  and  say, '  Thou  hast  un- 
derstood me  aright,'  and  he  will  be  gracious  to 
me." 

20-23.  The  converse  is  now  presented,  that 
which  can  and  does  defile.  It  conies  altogether 
from  the  man  himself,  from  within,  out  of  his 
heart.  Matthew,  "For  those  things  that  pro- 
ceed out  of  the  mouth  come  forth  from  the 
heart;  and  they  defile  the  man."  The  indict- 
ment as  Mark  gives  it  contains  thirteen  counts  ; 


Ch.  VII.] 


MARK. 


103 


21  For  from"  within,  out  of  the  heart  of  men,  pro- 
ceed evil  thouglits,  adulteries,  fornications,  luurdeiSj 

22  Thefls,   covutousuess,   wickedness,   deceit,  lasciv- 
iousness,  an  evil  eye,  blasphemy,  pride,  foolishness: 


21  man.    For  from  within,  out  of  the  heart  of  men, 

22  'evU  thoughts  j)roceed,  fornications,  thefts,  murders, 
adulteries,  covetiugs,  wickednesses,  deceit,  lascivious- 


o  Gen.  6:5;  Ps.  14  :  1,  3 ;  53  :  1,  3  ;  Jer.  17  :  9.- 


-1  Gr.  thoughts  that  are  evil. 


as  Matthew,  only  seven,  six  of  which  coincide 
with  Mark';?,  while  one,  "  false  witness,"  is 
added.  Matthew  follows  the  order  of  the  Dec- 
alogit.'  in  the  second  table ;  Mark's  order  appears 
to  be  accidental.  The  beginning  is  a  striking 
conlirination  of  tlie  general  principle  that  has 
been  laid  down.  For  from  within,  out  of 
the  heart  of  men,  proceed  evil  thoughts. 
The  word  is  a  conipuuiul  one,  and  refers  rather 
to  thought  as  organized  and  connected,  rather 
to  trains  of  thought  than  to  single  thoughts. 
These  evil  thoughts  detile  as  truly  and  deeply 
as  evil  deeds ;  yet  not  so  that  the  deed  will  add 
nothing  to  the  guilt.  So  in  Matt.  5  :  27,  28 : 
the  deliberate  thought  of  adultery  is  adultery 
in  the  heart.  It  is  a  true  judgment,  theoret- 
ically and  practically,  tliat  sets  evil  thoughts, 
without  restriction,  at  the  head  of  tlie  list. — 
Adulteries,  fornications,  murders, thefts. 
On  manuscript  authority  the  revisers  read  "  for- 
nications, thefts,  murders,  adulteries."  These 
are  acts,  and  by  the  use  of  the  plural  are  set 
forth  as  acts  rather  than  portrayed  by  any  ab- 
stract refjreiice  to  their  character.  But  the  one 
fact  concerning  them  to  which  our  Lord  would 
especially  call  attention  is  tliat  they  come  forth 
from  the  heart;  these  outward  deeds  are  really 
inward  deeds,  and  are  to  be  judged  not  solely 
from  their  outward  ettect,  their  ellect  upon  so- 
ciety, but  as  ex])ressions  of  the  inward  man. 
Coming  forth,  they  reveal  the  source  from 
which  they  sprang. — The  same  desire  to  par- 
ticularize appears  in  the  next  two  cases.  Cov- 
etousness,  or  covetings,  acts  of  covetousness, 
still  reganled  as  springing  from  the  heart,  and 
wickedness,  or  rather,  more  definitely,  "  ma- 
lignities," acts  or  forms  of  malignity  which 
manifestly  are  revelations  of  that  which  is 
within.  Here  there  is  a  double  specialization  ; 
for  the  word  used  {poncria)  means  malignity 
in  action,  and  not  merely  in  thought  (Trench, 
ISi/uonymx  of  the  New  Testament,  1.  60),  and  our 
Lord  selects  the  plural  of  this  definite  word  to 
express  his  thought — forms  of  active  malignity. 
— Deceit,  or  guile,  a  quality  of  the  habitual 
thinking  that  cannot  fail  to  control  the  con- 
duct. One  of  the  most  deep-.seated  and  inerad- 
icable of  sins,  partly  because  it  deludes  its  pos- 
sessor even  when  it  fails  to  deceive  others.  The 
absence  of  it  Jesus  joyfully  recognized  in  Na- 
thaniel (John  1 :  47),  and  the  presence  of  it  David 
felt  to  have  been  one  of  the  facts  that  inter- 


fered with  the  giving  of  pardon  for  his  great 
transgression  (Ps.  32:2). — Lasciviousuess,  or 
licentiousness,  wantonness,  or  unbridlcdness.  A 
word  that  can  scarcely  be  referred  to  any  special 
form  of  sin.  It  is  rather  the  undcrljdng  thought 
or  tem{)er  of  the  heart  by  which  many  sins  are 
made  possible  and  easy.  It  is  not  unchastity 
alone,  to  which  modern  usage  almost  limits 
the  words  "  licentiousness  "  and  "  lascivious- 
uess ;"  it  is  rather  the  recklessness  of  sjjirit 
that  opens  the  way  to  unchastitj'  and  to  many 
another  sin. — An  evil  eye  is  envy.  So  Matt. 
20  :  15  :  "  Is  thine  eye  evil  because  I  am  good?" 
— i.  e.  "  Art  thou  envious  at  my  kindness  to  an- 
other?" It  is  a  natural  impulse  to  attribute 
envy  in  action  to  the  circumstances  that  have 
aroused  it,  and  to  blame  the  object  of  our  envy 
rather  than  ourselves ;  but  our  Lord  was  plainly 
right  in  tracing  it  to  the  heart. — Blasphemy 
is  not  merely  the  speaking  profanely  against 
God,  as  one  might  infer  from  the  modern  usage. 
The  scriptural  usage  is  broader :  it  is  evil-speak- 
ing in  general,  defamation,  slander,  railing. 
So  it  is  used  in  Eph.  4  :  31;  1  Tim.  G  :  4.  In 
the  Epistles  the  word  refers  oftener  to  evil- 
speaking  against  men  than  to  what  we  call 
blasphemy,  profanity  toward  God.  Here, 
though  he  is  still  quoting  the  words  that  re- 
fer to  actions,  Mark  changes  (not  Matthew), 
and  uses  the  singular  instead  of  the  plural,  as 
before.  Apparently  he  thus  cea.ses  in  part  to 
specialize,  and  drags  to  light  for  condemnation 
evil-speaking  as  a  practice,  instead  of  suggest- 
ing the  special  acts. — The  last  two  evils  to  be 
mentioned  are  deep  parent-vices  of  the  heart, 
res])()nsiblc  for  innumerable  tran.sgressions. 
Pride,  tlie  false  and  extravagant  estimate  of 
one's  self  by  which  all  the  tlioughts  and  con- 
duct of  the  life  are  put  upon  a  false  basis. 
With  pride  dominant  in  the  heart,  no  thought 
about  one's  self  is  correct  and  truthful,  and 
hence  no  compari.son  of  one's  self  with  others 
can  be  just  and  no  true  recognition  will  be 
made  of  the  claims  of  God.  Pride  is  the  om- 
nipresent poisoner  of  motive,  vitiator  of  judg- 
ment, murderer  of  virtue ;  and  its  seat  is  in  the 
heart.  Foolishness,  the  lack  of  true  wisdom, 
or  rather  the  state  an<l  character  that  result 
when  true  wisdom  is  absent.  Foolishness  is 
by  no  means  a  negative  vice.  "  The  fear  of 
the  Lord  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom  ;"  and 
the  fear  of  the  Lord  does  not  merely  leave  a 


104 


MARK 


[Ch.  VII. 


23  All  these  evil  things  come  from  within,  and  defile 
the  man. 

24  1[  And  from"  thence  he  arose,  and  went  into  the 
borders  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  entered  into  an  house, 
and  would  have  no  man  know  it :  but  he'  could  not  be 
hid. 

25  For  a  certain  woman,  whose  young  daughter  had 
an  unclean  spirit,  heard  of  him,  and  came  and  fell  at 
his  feet : 


23  ness,  an  evil  eye,  railing,  pride,  foolishness :  all  these 
evil  things  proceed  from  within,  and  defile  the  man. 

24  And  from  thence  he  arose,  and  went  away  into  the 
borders  of  Tyre  'and  8idon.  And  he  entered  into  a 
house,  and   would   have  no  man   know  it :  and  he 

25  could  not  be  hid.  But  straightway  a  woman  whose 
little  daughter  had  an  unclean  spirit,  having  heard 


a  Matt.  15  :  21,  etc. 


-1  Some  aDcieot  authorities  omit  and  Sidon. 


vacant  place  for  negative  vices  when  it  is  ab- 
sent. The  "  folly"  of  the  book  of  Proverbs  is 
a  positive  and  various  evil,  and  so  is  the  fool- 
ishness that  here  stands  at  the  end  of  the  list 
of  ^ins  of  the  heart. 

All  these  evil  things,  says  Jesns,  come 
from  within,  and  defile  the  man.  Thus 
he  puts  upon  sin  the  disgrace  that  he  has  just 
removed  from  meats.  He  has  released  men 
from  all  anxiety  about  defilement  from  the 
kind  of  food  they  eat,  but  he  has  uncovered 
a  far  deeper  source  of  anxiety.  The  sharpest 
point  of  all  is  that  he  has  declared  man  to  be 
self-defiled,  the  fountain  of  his  own  unclean- 
ness.  From  the  heart  these  things  proceed ; 
and  how  terrible  they  are!  No  need  of  cer- 
emonial pollutions  to  establish  the  necessity 
for  cleansing ;  so  long  as  the  heart  remains 
such  a  fountain  it  is  certain  that  man  will  be 
defiled.  Nor  does  he  leave  any  one  at  liberty 
to  say  that  the  defiling  power  resides  either 
in  acts  alone  or  in  thoughts  alone;  for  he 
has  dragged  to  the  light  both  sins  of  action 
and  sins  of  thought. 

By  no  conceivable  utterance  could  our  Lord 
have  made  a  deeper  or  more  irreparable  break 
with  the  Pharisees  and  the  whole  spirit  of  their 
teaching.  Yet  what  utterance  of  his  whole  min- 
istry was  more  profoundly  characteristic  than 
this? 

24-30.  THE  HEALING  OF  THE  DAUGH- 
TER OF  A  SYROPHCENICIAN  WOMAN. 
Parallel,  Matt.  15  :  21-28.  —  The  narrative  is 
given  more  fully,  vividly,  and  characteristi- 
cally by  Mark ;  the  conversation,  by  Matthew. 
Without  Matthew's  report,  indeed,  our  know- 
ledge of  the  incident  would  be  comparatively 
fragmentary.  Mark  tells  the  story  as  from  an 
eye-witness ;  Matthew,  as  from  an  ear-witness. 

24.  A  fresh  journey  is  here  announced,  into 
a  fresh  field.  It  is  a  journey  into  the  borders 
-  4.  e.  tlie  region,  the  countrj'— of  Tyre.  The 
words  and  Sidon  should  perhaps  be  omitted 
here,  though  the  manuscript  authority  is  not 
decisive.  Verse  31  proves,  however,  that  the 
journey  extended  as  far  as  to  Sidon.  Here, 
and  here  alone  within  his  ministry,  we  follow 
our  Saviour  beyond  the  limits  of  the  land  of 


Israel  in  ajourney  of  considerable  extent  throtigh 
heathen  territory.  He  confined  himself,  with 
this  exception,  to  the  Jewish  land ;  and  during 
this  tour  he  plainly  indicated  (Matt,  is :  n)  that  he 
regarded  liimself  as  going  beyond  the  strict 
limits  of  his  mission.  Yet,  as  Plumptre  re- 
marks. Tyre  and  Sidon  were  no  more  truly 
defiled  in  his  sight  than  Chorazin  and  Beth- 
saida,  and  possibly  he  may  have  gone  forth 
upon  this  journey  with  a  feeling  that  all  spe- 
cial sanctity  was  gone  from  Jehovah's  land. 
As  for  the  motive  of  the  journey,  it  was  prob- 
ably the  desire  for  rest  and  for  retirement  with 
the  apostles.  His  ministry  in  Galilee  was  end- 
ing sadly,  and  now  his  lieart  turned  to  his  circle 
of  nearest  followers,  with  the  desire  to  be  with 
them  and  to  prepare  them  by  instruction  for 
their  great  trust  in  the  future.  One  effort  to  be 
alone  with  them  had  just  been  defeated  (chap.  6: 
31-34),  and  so  a  new  attempt  was  made  by  tinder- 
taking  ajourney  that  would  take  them  much 
farther  from  home.— Entered  into  an  house. 
The  hotise  of  some  friend,  perhaps,  either  in  the 
north  of  Galilee,  near  the  border  of  Tyre,  or  in 
the  land  of  Tyre  itself— He  would  have  no 
man  know  it:  but  he  could  not  be  hid. 
All  peculiar  to  Mark,  and  important  because 
it  proves  wliat  was  the  purpose  of  the  journey. 
He  was  not  preaching  or  intending  or  desiring 
to  work  miracles ;  and  if  a  multitude  gathered 
about  liim,  it  would  be  against  his  wisli. 

25.  The  original  connective  at  the  beginning 
of  this  verse  is  "  But "  instead  of  For.  The  dif- 
ference in  sense  is  slight,  but  real,  and  the  viv- 
idness of  the  lecture  is  increased  by  the  change. 
He  could  not  be  liid,  but  (on  the  contrary)  im- 
mediately, as  soon  as  he  had  arrived,  a  woman, 
etc.  Matthew  says  that  she  "  came  out  of  those 
coasts,"  or  out  of  that  country— ('.  c,  probal:)ly, 
out  of  the  land  of  Tyre.  This  is  perhaps  favor- 
able to  the  view  that  Jesus  had  not  yet  crossed 
the  border,  but  was  within  the  limits  of  Galilee. 
If  Tischendorf's  reading,  eheltJioitsn,  "coming 
in,"  which  is  certainly  ancient,  is  correct,  Mark 
represents  that  the  interview  here  described  took 
place  in  the  house.  There  would  be  no  dif- 
ficulty' in  combining  this  with  the  record  of 
Matthew,  who  speaks  of  an  interview  on  the 


Ch.  VII.] 


MARK. 


105 


26  The  woman  was  a  (Ireek,  a  Syrophenician  by  na- 
tion ;  and  she  liesoiit,'lit  him  that  he  would  cast  forth 
the  devil  out  ol'  her  daughter. 

•2~  Hut  Jesus  said  unto  licr,  Let  the  children  tirst  be 
filled:  for"  it  is  not  meet  to  take  the  children's  bread, 
and  to  cast  U  unto  the  dogs. 


20 of  him,  came  and  fell  down  at  his  feet.  Now  the 
woman  was  a  '(ireck,a  Syrophn'nieian  by  race.  And 
she  besought  him  that  he  would  cast  forth  the  demon 

27  out  of  her  daughter.  And  he  .said  unto  her.  Let  the 
children  tirst  be  tilled :  for  it  is  not  meet  to  take  the 


a  Matt.  7:6;  10  :  5,  6.- 


-1  Or,  Gentile 


road,  fur  he  also  says  that  the  woman  followed 
thoni ;  and  it  would  be  only  natural,  if  tliey 
were  t^oinj;  to  the  house,  that  she  should  follow 
tiiein  thither.  Such  a  fitting  together  of  tlie  two 
rejiorts  makes  the  story  more  jjieturescjue  anil 
interesting;  but  it  must  not  be  thought  that 
the  eredibility  of  the  reports  dejiends  upon  our 
ability  tints  to  match  them  together.  It  has 
sometimes  been  thought  so,  greatly  to  the  weak- 
ening of  confidence  in  the  Scriptures,  and  nuich 
to  the  disadvantage  of  honest  e.xegetical  study. 
We  must  never  put  ourselves  under  special 
temptation  to  ])ervert  any  passage  of  Scripture. 
— This  woman,  Avhose  young  daughter 
(thiKintridii,  the  word  is  a  diminutive)  had  an 
unclean  spirit,  having  heard  of  him — (.  c. 
of  the  works  he  had  done  and  the  fact  of 
his  presence — came  and  fell  at  his  feet. 
She  had  not  seen  him ;  faitli  t'ame  by  hear- 
ing. 

20.  The  womjin  was  a  (ireek.  So  the 
word  literally  means,  but  by  usage  among  the 
Jews  and  in  the  New  Testament  it  means  a 
(■entile,  a  non-Jew.  It  tells  nothing  of  the 
nationality  of  him  who  bears  it  as  a  name; 
not  even  in  such  a  passage  as  John  12  :  20  is  it 
decisive. — That  in  this  ca.se  it  is  used  in  its 
broader  sen.se  is  proved  by  the  descri]>tive  ad- 
dition tliat  follows.  A  Syropha-nician  by 
nation,  or  "by  race,"  to  ijenei.  Mattliew  calls 
her  a  Canaanite.  The  name  Syrophccnician 
belonged  to  the  part  of  the  Pluenician  race  that 
had  its  home  in  Syria,  tis  distinguished  from  the 
))art  that  dwelt  in  Libya,  on  the  soutliern  shore 
of  the  Mediterranean.  (So  Strabo,  quoted  in 
Meyer.)  The  emperor  Hadrian  (a.  d.  117-138) 
divided  the  province  of  Syria  into  three  parts, 
of  which  the  central  one,  lying  north  of  Pales- 
tine, was  called  Syr<iph(enicia ;  and  it  is  prob- 
able that  the  official  name  chosen  for  the  dis- 
trict was  a  name  i)reviously  in  use.  Tyre  and 
Sid<in,  Pha-nician  cities,  were  in  the  Syrophoo- 
nician  country.  Mark's  rapid  narrative  pas.><es 
by  the  woman's  nationality  at  what  we  would 
call  the  proper  place,  and  introduces  it  paren- 
thetically in  the  midst  other  entreaty  in  l)ehalf 
of  her  daugliter.— Besought  him  that  he 
would  cast  forth  the  devil,  or  demon,  out 
of  her  daughter.  Matthew  ipiotes  directly: 
"  Have  mercy  on   me,  O  Lord,   thou  Son  of 


David,  for  my  daughter  is  grievously   vexed 
with  a  devil." 
27.  Let  the  children  first  be  filled.    A 

direct  refusal,  with  reason  assigned.  Substan- 
tially eqtnvaleiit  to  "I  am  not  sent  but  to  the 
lost  sheej)  of  the  house  of  Israel,"  as  given  by 
Matthew.  By  this  he  meant,  "  My  ministry  is 
to  the  Jews,  who,  though  so  far  astray,  are  God's 
own  flock"  (Matthew),  or  "God's  own  family" 
(Mark).  "I  am  not  sent,  in  this  my  ministry, 
except  to  them.  So  let  the  children  first  be 
filled,  fed,  satisfied;  for  they  have  the  first 
claim,  which  is  indeed,  at  present,  the  only 
claim."  By  the  word  first  be  (juietly  conveys 
a  promise  and  suggests  the  principle  of  Rom. 
1 :  16 — "  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek," 
or  Gentile — but  there  was  no  immediate  fulfil- 
ment even  hinted  at  for  the  Gentile. — In  Mat- 
thew this  is  given  as  the  answer  to  the  woman's 
prayer,  and  at  the  same  time  to  a  most  unlove- 
ly requ&st  of  the  disciples.  At  first,  according 
to  iVhittliew,  he  answered  her  nothing,  but  she 
continued  to  ask.  Then  the  disci])les  came  and 
joined  their  prayer  to  hers,  but  in  a  different 
spirit,  saying,  "Send  Iter  away,  for  she  erieth 
after  us" — i.  e.  Send  her  away  with  her  prayer 
granted,  for  she  is  troublesome;  give  her  what 
she  wants,  and  let  us  be  rid  of  her.  It  was  to 
this  that  he  replied,  "  I  am  not  sent,  except  to 
the  lost  sheei>  of  the  house  of  Israel."  Yet  the 
woman  persisted  with  her  "  Lord,  help  me," 
and  then  he  added  the  reason  for  liis  refusal, 
wliich  in  ^lark  immediately  follows  upon  tlie 
refusal  itself. — The  reasoti,  for  it  is  not  meet 
— it  is  not  good,  or  right^ — to  take  the  chil- 
dren's bread,  and  to  cast  it  unto  the  dogs. 
()l)scrve  that  tlic  word  for  dogs  is  not  the  ordi- 
nary word;  not  the  word  of  Matt.  7  :  6,  "Give 
not  that  which  is  holy  to  the  dogs;"  not  the 
word  of  contempt,  so  often  ajijilied  to  the  fierce 
and  hated  dogs  of  the  East.  It  is  a  diminutive 
(hunnria),  and  refers  to  the  dogs  of  the  family, 
the  dogs  that  are  about  the  hoiu'se.  His  words 
picture  these  dogs  playing  about  the  house 
while  the  fondly  are  at  table.  To  blc^s  Gen- 
tiles now,  he  says,  woidd  be  like  taking  the 
children's  bread  and  throwing  it  to  these. — 
How  profoundly  touching  and  suggestive  that 
even  now  he  calls  Iiinist-lf  and  tlie  I)Iessings  of 
his  ministrv  the  children's  bread— this  at 


106 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VII. 


28  And  she  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Yes,  Lord : 
yet  the"  dogs  under  the  table  eat  of  the  children's 
crumbs. 

29  And  he  said  unto  her,  h  or'  this  saying  go  thy  way ; 
the  devil  is  gone  out  of  thy  daughter. 


28  children's  thread  and  cast  it  to  the  dogs.  But  she 
answered  and  saith  unto  him.  Yea,  Lord :  even  the 
dogs  under  the  table  eat  of  tlie  children's  crumbs. 

29  And  he  said  unto  her,  For  this  saying  go  thy  way; 


a  Rom.  15  •  8,  9;  Eph.  2  :  12-14 6  Isa.  66  :  2.- 


-1  Or,  loaf 


the  end  of  a  ministry  in  Galilee  in  the  course 
of  which  his  popularity  has  waned  and  it  has 
become  api^arent  that  he  is  not  to  be  accepted 
as  the  Messiah !  The  children  are  refusing 
their  bread,  yet,  with  the  faithfulness  and  per- 
sistency of  love,  he  will  not  take  it  from  them 
and  give  it  to  the  dogs. — Israel  has  the  first 
right  to  liim,  and  Israel  shall  have  him  first. 
Let  the  children  first  be  filled.  Yet  even 
the  bread  so  persistently  offered,  the  children 
utterly  refused. 

28.  Yes,  Lord.  The  woman  quickly  ac- 
cepts the  position  that  he  gives  lier,  and  with 
ready  wit  and  ready  faith  turns  sharply  upon 
him. — The  word  yet,  that  follows  in  the  com- 
mon version,  is  sadly  wrong  and  has  greatly 
obscured  a  beautiful  answer.  In  Matthew  the 
connective  is  "for;"  in  Mark  it  should  prob- 
ably be  "  and,"  or  "  even,"  though  liere  also 
"for"  has  some  authority.  With  "even,"  the 
thought  is,  "  True ;  even  for  the  dogs  there  is 
provision :  they  eat  the  crumbs,  just  as  I  am 
praying  that  I  may  do."  Richer  still  is  the 
thought  with  "for."  "True,"  she  says,  "it  is 
not  well  to  give  the  children's  bread  to  the 
dogs,  for  the  dogs  have  the  crumbs  for  their 
portion.  They  ought  not  to  receive  the  bread, 
for  they  have  their  provision  already  ;  and  it  is 
for  this  that  I  am  asking.  I  will  gladly  leave 
the  children  their  bread  if  I  may  but  have 
what  is  the  proper  portion  of  the  dogs."  Thus 
with  "for"  (which  one  cannot  btit  think  to 
have  been  the  word  that  she  itsed)  she  asks 
for  the  blessing  she  desires,  expressly  on  the 
ground  that  she  is  one  of  the  dogs,  and  that 
such  mere  droppings  of  his  abundant  grace  as 
she  is  asking  for  may  be  recognized  as  her  fit- 
ting portion. — Here  is  (1)  confidence  in  the 
fulness  of  his  power:  she  knows  that  he  is 
"able  to  do  this"  (Matt.  9:28).  (2)  Confidence 
in  the  generosity  of  his  heart :  she  is  sure  that 
there  is  no  deep  reason  in  himself  why  he 
must  absolutely  confine  his  activity  to  the  pro- 
viding of  the  children's  bread.  She  feels 
that  "there's  a  wideness  in  his  mercy"  by 
which  even  she,  a  Gentile,  is  justified  in  resort- 
ing to  him  in  her  need.  Very  naturally,  it 
was  in  a  Gentile  heart  that  this  confidence  first 
sprang  up :  his  Jewish  followers  were  narrow 
enough  for  a  long  time  after  this.  (3)  Confi- 
dence in  the  fairness  of  his  mind  :  a  full  con- 


viction that  it  will  not  be  in  vain  to  present  to 
him  a  case  of  need,  even  if  it  does  lie  outside 
of  his  accustomed  circle ;  conviction  that  it  will 
not  be  breath  wasted  to  argue  with  him  and 
press  him  to  attend  to  a  humble  request.  This 
is  faith  of  a  rational  kind,  for  it  rests  upon  a 
true  and  just  conviction  as  to  the  character  of 
him  to  whcmi  it  resorts.  It  is  in  the  spirit  of 
the  faith  that  our  Lord  comniends  in  Luke  11  : 
11-13,  where  he  bids  us  ground  our  expectation 
of  success  in  prayer  upon  an  intelligent  con- 
viction respecting  the  goodness  of  God.  (4) 
Persistency,  that  absolutely  will  not  take  re- 
fttsal.  Especially  as  given  in  Matthew,  this  is 
one  of  the  best  illu.strations  of  a  determined 
importunity  such  as  our  Lord  commends  in 
Luke  11:5-10;  18:1-8.  The  woman  pleads 
as  if  she  had  heard  him  say  that  "  Men  ought 
always  to  pray,  and  not  to  faint."  (5)  Humil- 
ity, that  does  not  shrink  from  accepting  an  in- 
ferior position.  This  is  not  merely  a  conces- 
sion of  inferiority  for  the  sake  of  argument,  a 
"  Call  me  wliat  you  will,  but  give  me  what  I 
want;"  it  is  a  recognition  of  the  first  claim  of 
Israel,  whose  Christ  he  is,  and  a  humble  ac- 
ceptance of  the  second  place.  Yet  possibly  she 
may  perceive  that  the  time  is  coming  when  all 
such  distinctions  will  be  swept  away  by  his 
grace.  (6)  Shrewdness,  quick  to  seize  an  ad- 
vantage and  bold  to  press  it.  "We  do  not  read 
of  any  one  else  who  so  turned  upon  our  Lord 
and  argued  with  him  out  of  his  own  mouth. 
We  can  see  that  she  is  not  afraid  of  him, 
though  full  of  reverence.  Neither  timid  nor 
disrespectful,  she  grasps  at  her  opi)ortunity  to 
extort  what  seems  to  be  refused. 

29.  The  answer  of  Jesus  expressly  affirms 
that  her  prayer  was  granted  because  of  what 
she  had  said.  In  Matthew,  "  O  woman,  great 
is  thy  faith  :  be  it  unto  thee  even  as  thou 
wilt;"  in  Mark,  still  more  explicitly,  For  this 
saying  go  thy  way;  the  devil  is  gone 
out  of  thy  daughter.  This  reply  appears  to 
settle  the  question  respecting  the  attitude  and 
motive  of  Jesus  in  this  conversation.  It  is 
often  assumed  that  he  must  have  intended 
from  the  first  to  grant  the  request,  and  was 
testing  the  woman  by  refusal  with  the  purpose 
of  drawing  out  and  increasing  her  faith.  There 
are  serious  difficulties,  in  any  case,  about  this 
view  of  his  conduct,  as  readers  of  the  story 


Ch.  VII.] 


MARK. 


107 


30  And  when  she  was  come  to  her  house,  she  found 
the  devil  gone"  out,  and  her  daughter  laid  upon  the 
bed. 

31  %  And  again,*  departing  from  the  coasts  of  Tyre 
and  .Sidon,  he  came  unto  the  sea  of  Galilee,  through 
the  midst  of  the  coasts  of  Decapolis. 


30  the  demon  is  gone  out  of  thy  daughter.  And  she 
went  away  unto  her  house,  and  found  the  child  laid 
upon  the  bed,  and  the  demon  gone  out. 

31  And  again  he  went  out  from  the  borders  of  Tyre, 
and  came  through  Sidou  unto  the  sea  of  (Jalilee, 


a  1  John  3:  8 b  Matt.  15  :  29,  etc. 


have  often  felt.     It  is  hard  to  see  how  in  re- 
peatedly refusing  tlie  request,  and   in   giving 
the  w^oman  and  the  disciples  a  reason  for  re- 
fusing, he  was  sincere  and  honest,  if  all  the 
time  he  meant  to  give  a  favorable  answer ;  for 
this  is  not  a  case  of  mere  delay  and  silent  dis- 
appointing of  hopes,  as  in  John  11  :  6:  it  is  a 
case  of  plain  refusal.     But  we  are  relieved  of 
all  such  moral  difficulties  as  soon  as  we  give 
its  due  weight  to  this  answer  of  Jesus,  in  which 
he  says  that  he  perforins  the  healing  on  ac- 
count of  this  saying.     He  was  honest,  then,  in 
all  that  he  said  before ;  he  did  not  intend  to 
grant  the  request ;  he  gave  the  real  reason  for 
the  refusal;   and  he  yielded  to  her  bold  and 
skilful  argument.     It  was  true  that  the  mission 
of  his  earthly  ministry  was  to  Israel,  and  that 
til  is  was   outside  of  his  tield.     He  had  come 
liitlier  not  intending  to  preach  or  to  heal ;  and 
only  this  woman's  faith  and  courage  led  him 
to  change  his  purpose. — To  some  minds,  per- 
haps, the  mere  mention  of  a  change  of  purpose 
in  our  Lord  may  be  objectionable.     If  he  was 
divine,  must  he  not   have  had   liis  complete 
foreknowledge  and  his  unalteral)le  plans?    In 
this  way  the  rec.Dgnition  of  his  Divinity  has 
often  made  his  humanity  unreal  and  his  con- 
duct mechanical  in  the  esteem  of  devout  souls. 
It  does  not  satisfy  the  terms  of  the  problem  of 
his  life  to  say  that  Jesus  Christ  was  God.     That 
is  only  a  part  of  the  truth,  for  he  was  "  the 
Word  made  flesh,"  God  within  the  limitations 
of  humanity.     The  more  we  are  won   away 
from  mechanical  theories  of  his  life  by  clearer 
views  of  his  person,  the  less  difficulty  shall  we 
have  in  recognizing  such  a  change  of  mind  as 
he  himself  here  announces.     The  more  real 
Jesus  becomes  to  us  as  a  living  person,  the 
more  intelligible  is  he,  morally,  to  our  hearts 
and  consciences,   and  yet  the  more  divinely 
glorious    and  the   farther    removed  from   the 
level  of  our  ordinary   humanity.  —  An   addi- 
tional reason  why  he  must  at  least  have  been 
glad  to  do  tliis  work  of  mercy  was  the  feeling, 
so  unlike  liis  own,  that  was  rising  in  the  dis- 
ciples.    When  they  said,    "Send   her  away" 
with  her  request  granted,  "  for  she  crieth  after 
us,"  he  must  have  been  glad  to  turn  to  a  better 
purpose  an  event  of  which  they  were  making 
so  unworthy  a  use.    When  they  wished  to  be 


rid  of  a  suppliant,  he  would  be  the  more  in- 
clined to  be  favorable  to  the  request. 

30.  The  word  was,  the  devil  is  gone  out 
of  thy  daughter.  The  fultilmcnt  that  the 
woman  found  at  home  was  (in  the  order  given 
in  the  revisers'  text),  she  "  found  the  child  laid 
upon  the  bed,  and  the  demon  gone  out."  Mat- 
thew's report  of  the  result  includes  no  picture 
of  the  scene.  Not  unlikely,  one  of  the  dis- 
cijiles  may  have  gone  home  with  her,  and  that 
one  may  have  been  Peter,  in  whose  report  the 
more  graphic  description  is  found. — As  for  the 
daughter,  did  she  ever  meet  her  Benefactor? 
Longfellow,  in  Tlie  Divine  Tragcdi/,  has  a  beau- 
tiful conjecture  that  she  saw  him  for  the  first 
time  when  he  was  making  his  entry  to  Jerusa- 
lem, and  i)oured  out  her  heart  in  love  and 
l^raise. 

31-37.  A  DEAF-AND-DUMB  MAN  IS 
HEALED. — Apparently  this  is  one,  and  not 
improbably  the  first,  of  the  great  group  of 
miracles  mentioned  in  i\Iatt.  15  :  29-31 ;  but  it 
is  the  only  one  of  that  gi-oup  of  which  we 
have  any  special  mention,  and  this  is  detailed 
by  Mark  alone.  This  passage  is  of  peculiar  in- 
terest as  being  one  of  two  very  graphic  and 
pictorial  narratives  of  the  act  of  healing,  given 
only  by  Mark,  and  intensely  characteristic  of 
him.  Nowhere  are  the  traces  of  eye- witnessing 
more  unmi.stakable,  and  nowhere  else  do  we 
thus  behold  the  process  of  healing  as  well  as 
the  result.  The  other  passage  is  in  chap.  8  : 
22-26. 

31.  According  to  tlie  text  adopted  by  the  re- 
visers, the  course  of  the  journey  is  here  quite 
definitely  marked  out:  "And  again  he  went 
out  from  the  borders  "  (region)  "  of  Tyre,  and 
came  through  Sidon  unto  the  sea  of  Galilee, 
through  the  mid.st  of  the  borders"  (region)  "of 
Decapolis."  That  lie  visited  the  city  of  Tyre 
itself  is  not  affirmed,  but  from  the  coui-se  of 
the  journey  it  seems  probable.  He  did  pass 
through  Sidon,  which  lay,  like  Tyre,  on  the 
shore  of  the  Mediterranean.  From  Capernaum 
to  Tyre  may  have  lieen  thirty  English  miles, 
and  from  Tyre  to  Sidon  twenty  more.  Between 
the  two  cities  were  Zarephath  (called  Sarepta  in 
Luke  4  :  26),  where  Elijah  was  preserved  alive 
in  famine  and  restored  the  widow's  son  to  life 
(1  Kings  17).    His  alluding  to  the  event  in  the  sjti- 


108 


MAKK. 


[Ch.  VII. 


32  And  they  bring  unto  him  one  that  was  deaf,  and 
had  an  impediment  in  his  speech ;  and  they  beseech 
him  to  put  his  hand  upon  him. 

ii'S  And  he  took  him  aside  from  the  multitude,  and 

Eut  his  lingers  into  his  ears,  and  he"  spit,  and  touched 
is  tongue ; 


32  through  the  midst  of  the  borders  of  Decapolis.  And 
they  bring  unto  him  one  that  was  deaf,  and  had  an 
iiiilK'iliiiniit  in  his  speech;  and  they  lieseech  him  to 

33  lay  his  hand  upon  him.  And  he  took  him  aside  from 
the  multitude  privately,  and  put  his  fingers  into  his 


a  cb.  8  :  2S  ;  John  9  :  6. 


agogue  at  Nazareth  is  enough  to  assure  us  that 
our  Lord  did  not  pass  the  spot  without  remem- 
bering again  how  it  was  a  Gentile  widow  to 
whom  the  prophet  was  sent.  From  Sidon  he 
turned  south-eastward,  and  crossed  the  upper 
Jordar.  and  came  down  on  the  eastern  side. 
But  he  did  not  merely  make  the  journey  down- 
ward along  the  river ;  he  appears  to  have  ex- 
tended his  tour  still  eastward — we  cannot  tell 
how  far  —  through  some  part  of  the  region 
known  as  Decapolis,  probably  visiting  some 
of  the  cities  from  which  that  region  took  its 
name.  (See  note  on  chap  5  :  20.)  The  reasons 
that  determined  the  route,  of  course,  cannot  be 
ascertained.  Thus  he  made  his  way  down  to 
the  Sea  of  Galilee,  reaching  it  somewhere  on 
the  eastern  side.  The  limits  of  Decapolis  are 
somewhat  uncertain,  but  its  extent  was  such 
that  his  journey  may  have  taken  him  farther 
south  than  his  destination  ;  so  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  tell  from  what  direction  he  approached 
the  lake  or  what  point  of  its  shore  he  probably 
first  touched.  Of  course  the  length  of  the  jour- 
ney cannot  be  measured  ;  but  it  can  scarcely 
have  been,  from  Capernaum  back  to  the  lake, 
less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  English  miles, 
and  it  may  have  been  more.  On  the  east  as  well 
as  on  the  north  this  was  a  tour  into  heathen  ter- 
ritory, but  in  no  part,  so  far  as  we  can  judge, 
was  it  a  tour  of  missionary  activity.  It  was 
rather  an  episode  in  his  ministry  when  he  was 
alone  with  his  disciples.  By  comparison  with 
Matthew  it  appears  that  this  miracle  was 
wrought,  most  probably,  on  some  "  moun- 
tain "  near  the  lake,  where  many  were  gath- 
ered aljont  him. 

32.  They  bring  unto  him  one  that  was 
deaf.  The  adjective  literally  means  "  stricken," 
or  "smitten"  (/coplios,  from  the  verb  kopto,  "to 
strike");  the  thought  is  that  the  person  has 
been  smitten  in  some  of  the  organs  of  sensation, 
so  as  to  be  deprived  of  power.  Sometimes  it  is 
the  organs  of  speech  that  are  thus  conceived  of 
as  smitten,  and  the  word  then  means  "dumb;" 
sometimes  it  is  the  organs  of  hearing,  and  it 
then  means  "  deaf,"  as  here.  The  other  descri])- 
tive  word  (mogilalos)  means  "  speaking  with  dif- 
ficulty ;"  not  "  speechless  "  (alalos),  as  in  verse 
37.  It  is  used  here  alone  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment.  It  cannot  be  smoothly  rendered  without 


paraphrase,  and  had  an  impediment  in  his 
speech  represents  it  well.  Yet  the  word  is 
used  broadly  for  "dumb"  in  the  LXX.  (isa. 
35:6). — The  great  Healer  was  asked  to  put  his 
hand  on  the  man  ;  so  Matt.  9  :  18  :  "  But  come 
and  lay  thy  hand  upon  her,  and  she  shall 
live."  But  now,  as  then,  the  great  Healer 
had  a  way  of  his  own. 

33,  34.  Three  peculiarities  appear  in  this 
act  of  healing—  the  privacy  of  the  transaction, 
the  use  of  signs  and  physical  media,  and  the 
unusual  vocal  utterances  of  the  Healer.  These 
Ijeculiarities  all  appear  again  in  the  other  mir- 
acle in  chap.  8  :  22-26,  already  alluded  to.  In 
studying  them  in  this  case  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered that  this  is  the  only  detailed  report  that 
we  possess  of  the  healing  of  a  deaf  man  ;  and, 
although  we  may  not  be  justified  in  inferring 
that  all  healings  of  the  deaf  resembled  this,  we 
may  find  in  the  i^ecitliar  method  now  adopted 
a  special  significance  in  connection  with  the 
natiu-e  of  the  affliction  that  was  to  be  removed. 
In  healing  the  blind,  Jesus,  so  far  as  we  know, 
always  made  some  appeal  to  the  senses  and 
powers  of  which  the  afflicted  ones  were  pos- 
sessed, drawing  out  their  faith  by  word  or 
touch  or  by  requiring  the  performance  of  some 
act.  (See  Matt.  9  :  29 ;  Mark  8  :  23 ;  10  :  49 ; 
John  9  :  6.)  So,  usually,  in  healing  the  lame 
and  helpless.  (See  John  5:6-8;  ISIark  3:3; 
Luke  17  :  14.)  In  the  case  of  a  deaf  man  words 
would  be  of  no  avail ;  and  if  any  such  apj)cal 
was  to  be  made,  it  must  be  done  by  signs.  In 
the  present  case  Jesus  probably  saw  in  the  man 
himself  some  reason  forjudging  it  l)estthat  the 
cure  should  be  private.  The  withdrawal  from 
the  crowd  would  impress  him,  though  he  could 
not  hear  its  tumult,  with  a  sense  of  solemnity. 
Perhaps  Jesus  saw  in  him  a  vanity  that  would 
render  anything  like  a  public  act  of  healing 
hurtful  to  him.  In  any  Cfx.se,  it  was  a  solemn 
and  touching  experience  to  be  alone,  or  almost 
alone,  with  Jesus  to  be  healed. — As  for  the  signs 
and  the  ])hysical  media,  they  were  such  as  he 
could  well  understand.  Je-sus  put  his  fingers 
into  his  ears.  Not  a  mere  touch,  but  an  in- 
sertion— a  sign  of  the  impartation  or  transfer- 
ence of  sometliing  from  one  person  to  the  other, 
with  reference  now  to  the  powerless  organs  of 
hearing.     This  was  the  laving  on  of  his  hand 


Ch.  VIL] 


MARK. 


109 


^4  And  looking"  up  to  heaven,  he  sighed,' and  saith 
unto  liini,  liphphutliii,  tliat  is,  He  opened. 

;(")  And  stnii>;ht\vay' liis  ears  were  opened,  and  the 
string  of  his  tongue  was  loosed,  and  he  spake  plain. 

.'.I'l  And  he  eliarged  them  that  they  should  tell  no 
num  :  liut  the  more  he  charged  them,  so  much  tlie 
more  a  great  di'al  they  pulilished  i/ : 

'■'.1  .\n(l  were  heyon<l  measure  astonished,"'  saying. 
He  hath  done  all  things  well:  he  niaketh'  both  the 
deaf  to  hear,  and  the  dumb  to  speak. 


34  ears,  and  he  spat,  and  touched  his  tongue;  and  look- 
ing up  to  heaven,  he  sighed,  and  sailli  unto  him, 

3-3  Kphphatha,  that  is.  He  o|)ened.  And  his  ears  were 
opened,  and  the  l)ond  of  his  tongue  was  loo.sed,  and 

3r>  he  spake  plain.  And  he  charged  them  that  they 
should  tell  no  man :  hut  the  more  he  charged  them, 
so  much  the   more   a  great  deal  they  jiublished  it. 

37  And  they  were  beyond  measure  astonished,  .saying, 
He  hath  done  all  things  well:  he  maketh  even  the 
deaf  tu  bear,  and  the  dumb  to  speak. 


acli.  6  :41  ;  John  11  :  41;  17  :  1 b  Johu  11  :  33,  38 c  Matt.  8:3,  15 dPa.  139  :  14  ;  Acts  14  :  11 e  Ex.  4  :  10,  11. 


tluit  li:i(l  lieeii  asked  for,  made  definite,  ap- 
j)n)])i'i;it(',  ami  instructive  by  his  wisdom. 
Then  he  spit,  and  touched  his  tongue — 
i.  e.  touehe.l  tlie  num's  t(jnjj;ue  witli  a  tinger 
perhaps  moistened  witli  his  own  saliva — an- 
other sijj;n  of  the  transference  of  something 
from  himself  to  the  attiieted  man,  this  time 
with  retV-rence  to  his  injured  organs  of  speech. 
Tiien  he  stood  looking  up  to  heaven,  to  in- 
dicate that  this  was  an  act  that  depended  upon 
a  heavenly  power — an  act,  indeed,  of  Heaven 
upon  the  earth.  Of  coui"sc  there  had  been  no 
opportunity,  bccaii.se  no  possibility,  of  preach- 
ing to  the  man,  and  in  his  ignorance  he  may 
easily  have  supposed  that  this  was  some  influ- 
ence of  a  magical  kind.  He  may  not  have 
known  to  what  power  he  was  submitting  him- 
self, and  the  reverent  heavenward  look  of  Jesus 
may  have  been  intended  silently  to  lift  his  heart 
and  faith  to  fJod.  How  better  could  he  show 
a  deaf  man  that  he  was  receiving  a  gift  from 
above?  Th'-n  he  sighed,  or,  rather,  "groaned." 
The  word  is  not  used  elsewhere  of  him,  but  it 
is  found  in  Rom.  8  :  23  and  2  Cor.  5  :  2,  where 
evidently  no  less  a  word  than  "  groan  "  is  needed 
to  represent  its  meaning.  This  was  no  artificial 
utterance  intended  for  effect:  it  w;is  a  sponta- 
neous utterance  of  genuine  sorrow  in  sympathy 
with  human  suffering.  It  came  from  the  same 
source  as  the  teai-s  at  the  grave  of  Lazarus.  Al- 
though the  man  could  not  hear  the  groan,  he 
might  be  aware  of  it,  for  doubtless  his  eyes  were 
busy  in  observing  what  liLs  Benefactor  was  do- 
ing ;  and  if  he  was  aware  of  it,  he  must  have 
felt,  however  dimly,  that  there  was  a  deep  and 
genuine  .sympathy  in  the  Healer's  heart.  This 
could  be  no  magician's  performance  to  him: 
this  was  a  deed  of  love.  And  then  at  last  he 
spoke;  and,  though  the  man  might  not  hear 
the  word,  he  may  have  known,  as  before,  that 
it  was  spoken.  Ephphatha,  that  is.  Be 
opened.  Here,  as  in  chap.  5  :  41,  Mark  has 
l)reservcd  the  very  word  in  the  Aramaic  tongue 
that  fell  from  the  lips  of  Jesus.  No  other  evan- 
gelist has  d(me  this,  except  in  the  ca.se  of  the 
utterance  on  the  cross,  "  Eli,  Eli,  lama  sabach- 
thani."     In  the  other  case  (chap,  s :  41)  the  Ara- 


maic words  that  Mark  preserves  were  spoken 
when  of  the  disciples  only  Peter,  James,  and 
John  were  present ;  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that 
the  same  special  three  were  the  only  auditors  at 
this  time  al.so.  Whether  others  were  present  or 
not,  this  must  certainly  have  come  down  to  us 
from  one  wIkj  heard  it.  The  Ejihphatha,  Be 
opened,  was  addressed  to  the  man  witii  refer- 
ence to  Ids  organs  of  sense,  which  are  conceived 
of  as  closed. 

35.  It  would  seem  that  the  moment  of  the 
Ephphatha  was  the  moment  of  the  change. 
Of  course  we  know  that  the  preceding  parts  of 
the  transaction  were  in  no  sense  necessarv'  to 
the  cure,  and  were  introduced  for  the  sake  of 
the  man  himself;  and  we  may  judge  that  he 
received  no  new  power  of  speech  or  hearing 
until  the  symbolic  or  pictorial  part  was  finished 
and  the  word  was  spoken. — The  cure  itself  is 
detailed  in  Mark's  j)eculiar  way.  The  revisers 
omit  straightway,  and  thus  represent  tlie  re- 
sult: "And  his  ears  were  opened,  and  the  bond 
of  his  tongue  was  loosed,  and  he  sjiake  j>lain," 
or  rightly,  normally. — The  string  of  his 
tongue  is  an  unfortunate  phra.se,  from  which 
a  reader  might  suppose  that  the  man  was  in 
some  way  tongue-tied.  But  the  reference  is 
merely  to  the  bond  or  restraint  that  was  upon 
his  jjowers  of  speech,  and  there  is  no  indication 
as  to  the  nature  of  that  restraint. — But  now  the 
organs  of  sense  were  opened,  and  henceforth 
all  was  done  {orthos)  in  the  natural  or  normal 
way. 

It  is  worth  while  to  look  back  at  this  act  and 
observe  how  beautifully  our  Lord  brought  to 
light  all  that  was  essential  in  a  work  of  heal- 
ing. Perhajis  the  symbolic  action  was  all  the 
j  more  beautiful,  because  it  must  be  made  to  do 
the  whole  work  of  words.  Two  signs  of  the 
transferring  of  power  from  himself  to  the  af- 
flicted— the  upward  look  to  heaven,  to  indicate 
the  source  of  ])ower ;  the  deep  sigh  or  groan  of 
genuine  sympathy  with  the  sutTering  that  is  to 
be  removed — and  the  word  of  jiowcr  by  which 
the  deed  is  done,  and  the  bond  is  broken.  A 
beautiful  story  for  deaf-mutes. 

36,  37.  He  charged  them.     Not  merely 


110 


MAKK. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


IN  those"  days  the  multitude  being  very  great,  and 
having  nothing  to  eat,  Jesus   called   his  disciples 
u7Uo  ki'iii,  and  saith  unto  them, 

2  I  have  compassion''  on  the  multitude,  because  they 
have  now  been  with  me  three  days,  and  have  nothing 
to  eat : 

'A  And  if  I  send  them  away  fasting  to  their  own 
houses,  they  will  faint  by  the  way :  for  divers  of  them 
came  from  afar. 


1  In  those  days,  when  there  was  again  a  great  mul- 
titude, and  they  had  nothing  to  eat,  he  called  unto 

2  him  his  disciples,  and  saith  unto  them,  I  ha\e  com- 
passion on  the  multitude,  because  they  continue  with 

3  me  now  three  days,  an<l  liave  nothing  to  eat :  and  if 
I  send  them  away  tasting  to  their  home,  they  will 
faint  in  the  way ;  and  some  of  them  are  come  from 


o  Matt.  15  :  35,  etc 6  Ps.  145  :  8,  15;  Heb.  5  :  2. 


the  man  himself,  but  the  people  who  were 
around.  Of  course  they  would  quickly  know 
what  had  been  done,  and  must  be  included  in 
his  prohibition.  Often  did  he  thus  plead  for 
silence  about  his  works  (as  in  chap.  3:12  and 
5  :  43),  and  now,  while  he  was  in  search  of  re- 
tirement and  quietness,  the  request  was  esjae- 
cially  to  be  expected.  But,  as  usual,  it  was  all 
in  vain :  the  gratitude  of  the  healed  and  the 
wonder  of  the  spectators  were  too  strong,  and 
the  story  must  be  told.  It  seems  probable  that 
this  miracle  was  the  means  of  bringing  on  the 
great  period  of  thronging  that  is  described  in 
Matt.  15  :  30,  31.  Mark's  expressions  in  de- 
scription of  the  abundant  proclamation  and 
the  excessive  amazement  are  of  the  very  strong- 
est character. — The  final  testimony  of  jiraise 
seems  to  have  been  called  out  by  the  many 
healings  that  took  place,  thougli  first  suggested 
by  the  one.  He  hath  done  all  things  well 
(perfect  tense) — he  has  been  gracious  everywhere 
and  successful  in  everything — he  maketh  (pres- 
ent tense)  both  the  deaf  to  hear,  and  the 
dumb  to  speak. — The  dumb.  A  stronger 
word  than  in  verse  32. 

1-9.   JESUS  FEEDS  FOUR  THOUSAND. 

Parallel,  Matt.  15  :  32-38.— The  connection  is 
unbroken  from  chap.  7,  and  the  place  is  still 
the  "  mountain "  on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
lake  whither  the  multitude  liad  come  to  meet 
him.  It  was  on  the  same  side  of  the  lake  with 
the  scene  of  the  similar  miracle  (Mark  6 : 3.1-44),  but 
we  cannot  affirm  that  the  place  was  the  same. 
The  intense  activitj'^  of  Matt.  15  :  30,  31  con- 
tinued several  days,  and  delayed  tlie  return  of 
Jesus,  after  his  long  absence,  to  the  towns  on 
the  other  side. — It  has  sometimes  been  alleged 
that  this  is  only  an  altered  version  or  a  varied 
remembrance  of  the  story  ju.st  referred  to,  in 
chap.  6,  two  events  so  nearly  alike  being  sup- 
posed to  be  less  probable  than  the  repetition  of 
the  story  with  variations.  But  there  is  every 
reason  to  believe  that  there  were  two  miracles 
of  feeding  the  multitude,  as  both  Matthew  and 
Mark  affirm.  The  circumstances  of  the  two, 
according  to  the  record,  were  so  different  as  to 


render  the  unfolding  of  the  two  stories  from 
one  event  most  improbable.  On  the  fir.st  occa- 
sion, Jesus  had  just  gone  forth  from  Capernatim ; 
on  the  second,  he  had  just  returned  to  that  re- 
gion after  a  considerable  absence.  On  the  first, 
the  multitude  had  followed  him  on  foot  from 
Capernaum  around  the  end  of  the  lake,  because 
they  saw  him  dei)arting  by  boat ;  on  the  second, 
the  multitude  was  gathered  by  the  tidings  of  his 
return  and  of  the  miracles  that  he  was  perform- 
ing. On  the  first,  the  people  had  been  with  liim 
only  during  the  day ;  on  the  second,  they  had 
been  three  days  in  his  company.  Moreover,  in 
verses  19,  20  of  this  chapter,  Jesus  distinctly  al- 
ludes to  the  two  events,  and  with  a  definiteness 
that  is  jjeculiarly  conchisive.  (See  note  there.) 
There  is  no  reason,  therefore,  for  a  reader  to 
suspect  that  a  mythical  element  has  entered 
here  and  made  two  stories  otit  of  one. 

1-3.  Very  great  {pampoUou).  We  should 
read,  with  the  revisers,  "again  a  great"  (palin 
polloii),  "  when  there  was  again  a  great  multi- 
tude, and  they  had  nothing  to  eat." — This  time 
Jesus  takes  the  initiative,  and  consults  his  dis- 
ciples as  to  wliat  should  lie  done.  1  have  com- 
passion on  the  multitude.  His  compassion 
led  him  on  the  other  occasion  to  teach  them  as 
well  as  to  feed  them ;  and  so  doubtless  it  did 
now.  Matthew's  citation  of  his  words  is  ap- 
parently the  more  precise,  as  it  is  the  more  ex- 
pressive; literally,  "And  send  them  away  fast- 
ing I  will  not,  lest  they  fiunt  in  the  way." — Mark 
adds,  for  divers  of  them  came  from  afar. 
There  is  sufficient  manuscript  authority  for 
substituting  "  and  "  for  for.  The  connection 
of  thottght  is  that  some  of  them  have  come 
from  far,  and  therefore  have  for  to  go — so  far 
that  compassion  forl)ids  sending  them  away 
hungry.  He  does  not  say  that  during  tlie  three 
days  they  have  been  with  him  they  have  had 
nothing  to  eat,  but  only  intimates  that  by  this 
long  stay  their  j)rovisions  have  become  exhaust- 
ed.— Why  did  he  consult  his  disciples  on  the 
level  of  earthly  necessities  and  modes  of  pro- 
vision, instead  of  proposing  at  once  to  put  forth 
his  own  power  ?  Perhaps  for  two  reasons  :  part- 
ly in  order  that  reliance  upon  him  might  not 


Ch.  VIII.] 


MARK. 


Ill 


4  And  his  disciples  answered  him,  From  whence"  can 
a  man  satisfy  these  vieii  with  bread  here  in  the  wilder- 
ness '.' 

■)  And  he  asked  them,  How  many  loaves  have  ye? 
And  they  said,  Seven. 

G  And  "he  commanded  the  people  to  sit  down  on  the 
groviiul :  and  he  took  the  seven  loaves,  and  tcavc  thanks, 
and  brake,  and  ^ave  to  his  disciples  to  set  before  them; 
and  they  did  set  Ihem  before  the  people. 

7  Aiui  they  had  a  few  small  fishes:  and  he  blessed,* 
and  comman<lcii  to  set  them  also  before  them. 

8  f»o  they  did  eat,  and  wimc-  lilhil;  and  they*  took 
up  of  the  broken  mea/  that  was  left  seven  baskets. 


4  far.    And  his  disciples  answered  him.  Whence  shall 

one  be  able  to  fill  these  men  with  'bread  here  in  a 

5  desert  place?   And  he  asked  them,  How  many  loaves 

6  have  ye?  And  they  said.  Seven.  .Vnd  he  command- 
eth  the  multitude  to  sit  down  on  the  ground:  and 
he  took  the  seven  loaves,  and  having  given  thanks, 
he  brake,  and  gave  to  hisdi>ciples.  to  set  before  them; 

7and  they  .set  them  before  thi'  mullitmle.  .And  they 
had  a  few  small  lishes :  and  liavln.^'  blessed  llieni,  he 

8 commanded  t(^  set  these  also  before  tlieiii.  .\nd  they 
did  eat,  and  were  filled  :  and  they  took  up,  of  brokeu 


ach.  6:36,  »T....6Matt.  H:l9....cP3.  107:5,6;  145:  16.... d  I  Kings  17  :  U,  16;  -l  Kings  4:  2:  7:42,11.- 


alienate  them  from  tlie  habit  of  forethought 
even  in  tlie  matter  of  caring  for  these  mtilti- 
tudes  that  gathered  about  him ;  and  partly  to 
sliow  them  that  even  he  was  not  above  the 
e.xercise  of  forethought  in  the  emi>h)ymcnt  of 
his  miraculous  power.  Not  without  carefully 
talving  note  of  tlie  need  of  miracles  did  lie  per- 
form them ;  and  he  would  liave  his  disciples 
know  tliat  he  wrought  miracles  with  a  wise 
forecast,  and  not  as  a  matter  of  course,  whether 
they  were  needed  or  not. 

4,  5.  The  answer  is  one  of  helplessness  and 
despair.  Here  iu  the  wilderness,  witli  no 
place  of  supply  near,  and  the  store  of  tiie  dis- 
ciples had  gone  as  low  as  tliat  of  the  multitude 
in  the  course  of  the  three  days.  But  why  did 
they  not  give  utterance  to  faith  in  his  power? 
They  had  but  lately  seen  a  multitude  fed  by 
him,  and  a  little  later  he  rebuked  them  for 
not  remembering  how  able  he  was  to  do  such 
works.  But  their  Master  had  consulted  them 
on  tlie  earthly  level,  cxvu'cssing  merely  his  pity 
for  the  people  and  his  desire  that  they  niiglit 
Ix^  fed  before  he  sent  them  away.  He  had  al- 
ready allowed  both  disciples  and  multitude  to 
use  up  all  tlieir  food  and  come  to  the  verge  of 
exhaustion,  just  as  if  he  had  no  intention  of 
interposing  to  relieve  tliem  by  miracle.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  his  disciples  ever  proposed 
to  Jesus  to  use  his  miraculous  power,  except 
by  bringing  the  sick  to  him ;  unless  Luke  9  : 
54  forms  an  exception,  where  the\-  themselves 
wished  to  call  Hre  from  heaven  to  destroy  tho.se 
who  insulted  him. — In  such  a  case  as  this  they 
would  feel  that  the  suggestion  of  a  miracle  must 
come  from  him.  They  would  jirobably  liave 
shrunk,  as  they  ought,  from  saying,  "  You  can 
feed  them,"  especially  when  they  had  no  hint 
of  his  intention.  He  can  scarcely  have  wished 
them  to  suggest  it.  Therefore  their  answer 
probably  expressed,  not  stupidity,  but  their 
sense  of  duty  to  consider  the  matter  on  the 
level  that  he  had  proposed.  In  Mark  they  say, 
whence  can  a  man,  or,  "  Whence  shall  one 
be  able?"  etc.;  in  Matthew,  "  Wlience  should 
8 


we  have  bread?"  etc.;  as  if  recognizing  that 
they  had  a  sliare  in  the  proposed  work  {Ben- 
\gel). — How  many  loaves  have  ye?  Press- 
ing the  w<jrk  liome  upon  them ;  as  if  he  had 
said,  "  Your  share  is  first :  I  shall  do  nothing 
till  you  have  done  all." — Seven  loaves ;  on  the 
other  occasion,  five.  Matthew  mentions  here 
the  "few  small  fishes;"  Mark  only  in  the  ac- 
count of  the  miracle  itself. — The  command  to 
place  them  in  his  hands  is  not  mentioned  here, 
as  it  is  in  the  other  ca.se  (Matt.  U:i8),  but  of 
course  it  is  implied.  This  was  the  one  thing 
that  they  could  do  :  although  their  liandful  of 
food  was  as  nothing,  they  could  liring  it  to 
him  to  be  made  effective ;  and  all  his  servants 
can  do  that  with  their  resources. 

6-9.  The  scene  was  as  before,  but  is  not  so 
vividly  described.  No  mention  of  the  grass, 
or  of  the  diWsions  of  fifty,  or  of  the  "  flower- 
bed" appearance  when  they  had  sat  down. 
The  prayer  was  one  of  thanksgiving,  both  in 
ISIatthew  and  in  Mark  ;  it  corresponded  to  our 
saying  grace  or  asking  a  blessing. — This  is  the 
only  place  in  Mark  wliere  the  few  small  fishes 
are  mentioned,  and  they  are  introduced  as  if 
they  formed  a  sejiarate  course,  attended  with  a 
separate  prayer  or  blessing — an  iinpre.-<sion  that 
is  confirmed  by  Mark's  employment  of  another 
word  to  describe  the  prayer  over  tlie  fishes,  the 
word  eultxjrms,  which  means  "  liaving  blessed," 
while  the  former  word  means  "having  given 
thanks."  These  are  the  two  words  tliat  are 
emj^loyed  in  tlie  narratives  of  tlie  institution 
of  tlie  Lord's  Supper. — The  disciples  were  again 
the  almoners,  receiving  the  food  to  give  it  to 
tlie  people.  Here,  as  before,  it  is  quite  useless 
to  sjieculate  as  to  the  process  by  wiiich  food 
was  multiplied.  All  talk  about  a  "  liastening 
of  the  processes  of  nature"  is  nonsense  liere, 
where  the  product  was  such  as  to  require  arti- 
ficial processes  as  well  as  natural.  Unless  the 
story  is  ptirely  a  myth,  here  was  tlie  exercise 
of  creative  power. — Of  fragments,  seven  bas- 
kets. In  the  other  case,  twelve.  The  differ- 
ence both  in  the  number  of  loaves  and  in  the 


112 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


9  And  they  that  had  eaten  were  about  four  thou- 
sand: and  he  sent  them  away. 

10  H  And  straightway"  he  entered  into  a  ship  with 
his  disciples,  and  came  into  the  parts  of  Dalmanutha. 

11  And  the  Pharisees*  came  forth,  and  began  to  ques- 
tion with  him,  seeking  of  him  a  sign  from  heaven, 
tempting  him. 


9  pieces  that  remained  over,  seven  baskets.    And  they 
were  about  four  thousand:  and  he  sent  them  away. 

10  And  straightway  he  entered  into  the  boat  with  his 
disciples,  and  caine  into  the  parts  of  Dahnanutha. 

11  And  the  Pharisees  came  forth,  and  began  to  ques- 
tion with  him,  seeking  of  him  a  sign  from  heaven, 


o  Malt.  15:  39 b  Matt.  12:38;  16:1,  etc. ;  John  6  :  30. 


number  of  baskets  is  another  sign,  tliough  a 
minor  one,  of  the  separateness  of  the  two 
events.  A  more  striking  sign  is  the  difference 
in  the  "baskets"  of  the  two  narratives.  The 
"baslvet"  of  the  other  story  is  tlie  cophinus;  of 
this,  the  spuris.  Tliis  distinction,  moreover, 
Jesus  retains  in  his  allusion  to  the  two  mir- 
acles (verses  19, 20;.  Of  coursc  this  is  either  a  nat- 
ural and  unstudied  allusion  to  real  events  or  a 
neat  piece  of  deliberate  invention  ;  there  is  no 
middle  ground.  Tlie  distinction  between  the 
two  kinds  of  baskets  is  not  easily  ascertained. 
The  spuris  might  be  large  enough  to  contain  a 
man  (see  Acts  9  :  25),  though  it  is  not  certain 
that  the  spuris  was  invariably  the  larger.  Prob- 
ably these  were  the  provision-baskets  of  some 
who  Iiad  come  from  afar  with  food  that  lasted 
three  days. — What  was  done  with  this  large 
store  of  fragments  ?  Probably  on  the  next  day, 
we  find  the  disciples  without  bread  (verse  u), 
whence  we  infer  that  they  did  not  keep  it. 
Very  likely  it  was  put  at  tlie  disposal  of  some 
of  those  who  came  from  afar  and  still  had  a 
long  journey  before  them.— They  that  had 
eaten  were  about  four  thousand.  Mat- 
thew adds,  "  besides  women  and  children." — 
The  dismission  of  the  multitude  is  mentioned 
only  by  Mark.  Doubtless,  Jesus  had  more 
satisfaction  in  their  comfortable  state  in  leav- 
ing him  than  they  themselves  had.  Such  gen- 
erous acts  of  giving,  even  on  the  plane  of  phys- 
ical wants,  were  appropriate  symbols  of  the 
love  that  he  brought  to  men.  We  should 
greatly  misjudge  him  if  we  thought  of  his  love 
as  anything  less  than  complete  and  compre- 
liensive  of  the  whole  state  and  need  of  man. 

10-12.  A  SIGN  FROM  HEAVEN  IS  DE- 
MANDED AND  REFUSED.  Parallel,  Matt. 
15  :  39-16  :  4. 

10.  The  detention  on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
lake  was  at  an  end,  and  all  was  ready  for  the 
return  to  tlie  towns  on  the  west,  which  had 
not  seen  him  since  lie  set  out,  a  considerable 
time  before,  on  the  journey  toward  Ridon.  He 
embarked  with  his  disciples  straightway,  as 
soon  as  the  multitude  had  left  him.  It  was 
not  a  ship,  but  "the  boat,"  that  received 
them — the  boat  which  they  were  accustomed 
to  use,  brought  over  from  the  other  side,  per- 
haps, by  some  friend  who  knew  that  they  were 


near. — Came  into  the  parts  of  Dalma- 
nutha. Matthew  says,  "into  the  coasts,"  or 
region,  "  of  Magdala,"  or,  as  the  best  man- 
uscripts read,  "  of  Magadan."  The  names  "  Mag- 
adan" and  "Dalmanutha"  are  both  unknown, 
except  from  this  allusion.  Magdala  (the  same 
name  as  "Migdol,"  "a  tower")  lay  a  little 
south  of  Capernaum,  at  the  lower  end  of  the 
Plain  of  Gennesaret,  and  it  is  thought  that 
certain  ruins  that  lie  about  a  mile  south  of 
Magdala  represent  the  ancient  Dalmanutha. 
The  use  of  the  two  names  affords  an  excellent 
illustration  of  the  independence  of  the  two 
narratives. 

11.  The  Pharisees  came  forth,  and  be- 
gan to  question  with  him. — ;.  e.  came  out 
from  their  homes  when  they  heard  that  he 
was  tliere.  By  some  it  is  a.ssumed  that  he 
went  beyond  Dalmanutha  to  Capernaum,  and 
that  this  interview  took  place  there;  but  the 
intention  of  both  evangelists  apparently  was  to 
tell  what  happened  almost  as  soon  as  he  had 
landed.  Hence  these  were  in  all  probability 
Pharisees  of  Dalmanutha.  Matthew  associates 
Sadducees  with  them. — Seeking  of  him  a 
sign  from  heaven.  See  similar  requests  in 
John  2  :  18 ;  Matt.  12  :  38 ;  John  6  :  30,  all  pre- 
vious to  this.  What  they  asked  for  was  some- 
thing like  the  manna  (so,  expressly,  in  John 
6  :  31),  or  thunder  from  a  clear  sky  (i  sam.  12 :  is), 
or  fire  from  heaven,  such  as  came  to  Elijah 
(1  Kings  18),  or  the  signs  of  Joel  2  :  30,  31.  There 
was  a  popular  impression  that,  although  mir- 
acles upon  the  earth  might  be  spurious  and  de- 
ceptive, signs  from  heaven  could  not  be  coun- 
terfeited. It  was  expected  that  they  would 
accompany  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  and 
tlierefore  Jesus  was  repeatedly  asked  to  fulfil 
this  expectation.  If  he  was  the  Christ,  they 
thought  he  would  certainly  be  able  and  will- 
ing, and  even  anxious,  to  give  this  proof  of  his 
claim.— But  they  were  tempting  him,  never- 
theless— i.  e.,  as  in  Matt.  19  :  3  and  Mark  12  :  13, 
they  were  trying  to  entangle  him,  to  his  own 
injury  with  the  people.  They  knew  well 
enough  that  he  would  not  give  them  a  sign 
from  heaven ;  all  the  Pharisees  in  Galilee  must 
have  known  the  great  refu.sal  recorded  in  Matt. 
12  :  39  and  the  more  recent  one  of  John  6. 
He  would  not  give  them  the  sign,  but  by  re- 


Ch.  VIII.] 


MARK. 


113 


12  And  he  sighed  deeply  in  his  spirit,  and  saith,  Why 
doth  Ihi-i  uent  ration  seek  alter  a  sign  ?  verily  I  say  unto 
ytiii,  There  shall  ii<i  sign  he  given  unto  this  generation. 

i;(  And  he  left  them,  and  entering  into  the  ship, 
again  departed  to  the  other  side. 

14  ^f  Now  ihe  di.iciples  had  forgotten  to  take  hread, 
neither  had  they  in  the  ship  with  them  more  than  one 
loaf. 

1">  And  he  charged  them,  saying.  Take  heed,  beware" 
of  the  leaven'  of  the  Pharisees,  and  of  the  leaven  of 
Herod. 


12  trying  him.  And  he  .sighed  deeply  in  his  spirit,  and 
saith,  Why  doth  this  generation  seek  a  sign  .'  \erily 
I  say  unto  you,  There  shall  no  sign  he  given  unto 

13  this  generation.  And  he  left  them,  and  again  enter- 
ing into  liif  iiuiU  departed  to  the  other  side. 

14  And  they  forgot  to  lake  hread;  and  they  had  not 
loin  the  hoat  with  them  more  than  one  loaf     And  he 

charged    them,  saying,  Take    heed,    beware   of  the 
leaven  of  the  I'harisees  and  the  leaven  of  llerod. 


a  Prov.  19  :  27  ;  Luke  12:  1....6  Ex.  12  :  20;  Lev.  2  :  11 ;  1  Cor.  5  :  6-8. 


pcatodly  calling  for  it  they  might  discredit  his 
claims  with  the  people,  who  expected  it  of  the 
Messiah.  Since  they  themselves  hated  him, 
they  must  take  all  measures  to  prevent  Israel 
from  sui)posiiig  its  hopes  to  he  fultilled  in  him  ; 
so  they  would  play  upon  false  hopes  and  studi- 
ously repress  all  sj)iritual  expectations.  This 
was  his  welcome  when  he  landed  again  on  the 
soil  of  Galilee.  He  had  been  absent  long  enough 
to  allow  calm  thought  about  him,  and  had  now 
returned  after  a  few  days  of  gracious  working 
just  across  the  lake.  This  was  his  reception — 
the  old  wearisome  demand  of  spiritual  blind- 
ness:  Give  us  a  sign  iVom  lieaven. 

12.  At  human  misery  he  siglii'd  (ch.ap.  7 :  .14) ; 
at  human  sin  amounting  to  criminal  inability 
to  discern  the  trutli  he  sighed  deeply  in  his 
spirit — a  touch  of  personal  remembrance  pe- 
culiar to  Mark.  This  deep  sigh,  or  groan,  was 
the  sign  of  the  chafing  of  his  spirit  against 
spiritual  harriers.  To  the  physically  deaf  he 
could  say  '"  Ephphatha,"  but  not  to  these  spirit- 
ually hardened  and  self-imprisoned  Pharisees. 
What  voice  could  reach  them?  When  the  ricli 
young  man  departed  sorrowful,  he  pointed  his 
disciples  to  the  brighter  side,  saying,  "  With  God 
all  things  are  possible."  But  in  the  case  of  these 
])roud  and  hardened  men  he  could  only  sigh, 
for  the  gates  of  spiritual  possibility  seemed 
close<l. — Why  doth  this  generation  seek 
after  a  sign  ?  This  generation,  the  men 
of  his  time,  who  had  the  opportunity  to  know 
him  —  why  should  tliey  ask  for  a  sign?  If 
there  was  no  spiritual  recognition  of  him.  the 
case  was  hopeless ;  signs  would  teacli  them 
nothing.  He  himself  was  the  true  Sign  from 
heaven,  the  living  Witness  to  the  present  God. 
If  they  did  not  see  that  he  was  in  the  Father 
and  the  Father  in  him,  their  blindness  must 
remain.  Therefore  he  told  them,  with  his  em- 
phatic verily  I  say  unto  you,  tnat  no  sign 
should  be  given  them.— In  Matthew  three  ad- 
ditions are  placed  liere,  all  exceedingly  signif- 
icant: (1)  He  contra.'^ts  their  quickness  in  de- 
tecting signs  of  coming  changes  of  weather  witli 
their  slowness  in  discerning  spiritual  .signs.  (2) 
He  traces  their  lack  of  iierception  of  a  present 


God  to  spiritual  adultery.  The  prophets  repre- 
sent Israel  as  the  wife  of  Jehovah,  and  (jften  as 
tlie  unfaithful  and  adulterous  wife.  This  gen- 
eration, says  Jesus,  is  thus  adulterous;  it  has 
broken  faith  with  God,  and  has  become  carnal 
and  unloving.  Tlierefore  it  has  lost  all  .spiritual 
sense  and  consciousness  of  him,  and,  instead  of 
discerning  his  holy  i)re.scnce  in  him  whom  he 
liath  sent,  must  be  asking  for  visible  signs  and 
portents  to  certify  his  nearness.  But  for  tlie 
sj)iritual  adultery  there  would  be  felt  no  need 
of  .signs.  (3)  "  There  shall  be  no  sign  given  but 
the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonah,"  of  which  lie 
had  before  spoken  (Matt.  12: 3»,  40),  and  which  he 
seems  to  have  wished  to  keep  in  their  sight  as  a 
suggestive  lesson,  which  might  possibly  awaken 
some  right  (juestionings  in  their  hearts. 

13.  Disheartened  and  repelled  by  this  recep- 
tion in  "  his  own  country,"  he  abruptly  turned 
back,  without  going  on,  as"  it  appciu-s,  to  Caper- 
naum, and  rc-einbarked  to  return  to  the  ea.sterii 
shore.  It  is  little  to  say  that  he  must  have  gone 
in  sadness.  "  He  was  despi.sed  and  rejected  of 
men,  a  man  of  sorrows,  and  acijuainted  with 
grief"  We  should  greatly  misread  his  life  if  we 
interpreted  such  language  almost  entirely  in  the 
light  of  his  latest  sufferings.  He  felt  the  grief 
of  rejection,  not  merely  as  a  personal  wrong, 
but  more  as  the  rejection  of  God  and  goodness 
and  of  saving  love.  Bringing  the  message  of 
infinite  mercy,  he  must  have  longed  to  be  ac- 
cepted; and  it  could  not  be  other  than  a  con- 
stant grief  to  him  tliat  "  he  came  to  his  own, 
and  his  own  received  him  not." 

Not  more  than  a  few  hours  at  the  most  does 
he  appear  to  liave  remained  on  tlie  western 
sliore,  and  now  he  is  again  afloat  on  tlie  lake 
with  his  disciples,  setting  out  on  another  jour- 
ney alone  with  them,  not  to  return  until  they 
have  visited  the  region  of  Ca^sarea  Pliilippi. 

14-21.  WARNING  AGAINST  THE  L1:AV- 
EN  OF  THE  PHARISEES.  Pnrnlfrl,  Matt.  K! : 
5-12. 

14,  15.  The  neglect  to  take  a  siipjily  of  bread 
was  doubtless  the  result  of  their  haste  in  again 
setting  out ;  and,  in  that  view  of  the  matter, 
Jesus  himself  was  responsible  for- it,  since  he 


114 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


16  And  they  reasoned  among  themselves,  saying,  It 
is  because  we  have  no  bread. 

17  And  when  .lesus  knew  it,  he  saith  unto  them.  Why 
reason  ye,  because  ye  have  no  bread?  perceive"  ye  not 
yet,  neither  uuderstaud?  have  ye  your  heart'  yet  hard- 
ened? 

18  Having  eyes,"  see  ye  not?  and  having  ears,  hear 
ye  not?  and  do  ye  not  remember?'^ 

19  When  1  brake  the  five  loaves'  among  five  thou- 
sand, how  many  baskets  full  of  fragments  took  ye  up  ? 
They  say  unto  him.  Twelve. 

20  And  when  the  seven/ among  four  thousand,  how 
many  baskets  full  of  fragments  took  ye  up?  And  they 
said,  Seven. 

21  And  he  said  unto  them.  How  is  it  that  ye  do  not 
understand  ? 


16  And  they  reasoned  one  with  another,  'saying,  ^We 

17  have  no  bread.  And  .lesus  perceiving  it  sailli  unto 
them,  Why  reason  ye,  because  ye  have  no  bread?  do 
ye  not  yet  perceive,  neither  understand?  have  ye 

18  your  heart  hardened  ?  Having  eyes,  see  ye  not  ?  and 
having  ears,  hear  ye  not?  and  do  ye  not  remember? 

19  When  I  brake  the  five  loaves  among  the  five  thou- 
sand, how  many  baskets  full  of  broken  pieces  took 

20  ye  up?  They  say  unto  him.  Twelve.  And  when  the 
seven  among  the  four  thousand,  how  many  %asket- 

21  fuls  of  broken  pieces  took  ye  up?  And  they  say  unto 
him,  Seven.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Do  ye  not  yet 
understand? 


ach.  6  :  52 h  ch.  3:.');  16  :  U c  Isa.  U  :  18 d  1  Pet.  1 :  la....ech.  6  :  38,  44  ;  Matt.  14  :  17-21  ;  Luke  9  :  12-17  ;  John  6  :  5-13 /tw. 

1-9;  Matt.  15  :  34-:i8. 1  Some  ancient  authorities  read  hecaust  they  had  no  bread.  ...2  Or,  It  is  because  we  havcno  bread 3  Basket 

in  ver.  19  and  20  represents  different  Greeli  words. 


had  hurried  them  away.  It  is  Mark  alone  who 
mentions  the  one  loaf  that  they  had  with  them 
in  the  boat ;  plainly  a  touch  of  definite  remem- 
brance from  one  who  was  present. — And  he 
charged  them.  The  emphatic  word  is  pecu- 
liar to  Mark. — Take  heed,  beware  of  the 
leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  and  of  the  leaven 
of  Herod.  In  ^Matthew,  "  of  tlie  Pharisees  and 
Sadducees."  From  this  grouping  it  has  some- 
times been  inferred  that  Herod  was  a  Sadducee ; 
but  that  seems  too  definite  a  conclusion  to  draw 
from  such  premises.  Undoubtedly,  Herod's 
position  was  such  as  to  give  him  more  in  com- 
mon with  the  Sadducees  than  with  the  Phar- 
isees, and  the  Sadducees  may  have  been  the 
Herodians  of  Galilee ;  but  Herod  Antipas  was 
probably  too  much  of  an  inditt'ercntist  to  hold 
very  strongly  the  doctrines  of  any  Jewisli  sect. 
— The  leaven  is  expressly,  according  to  Mat- 
thew, the  "  doctrine"  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sad- 
ducees, or  of  the  Pharisees  and  Herod.  But 
"doctrine"  {cUdache)  is  an  active  word  rather 
than  a  passive,  and  refers  rather  to  the  teaching 
than  to  the  substance  of  what  was  taught ;  and 
when  used  of  Herod  it  must  be  substantially 
equivalent  to  "  influence." — The  warning  must 
be  understood  in  the  light  of  what  had  just  oc- 
curred, ff)r  it  must  certainly  have  been  suggest- 
ed by  the  demand  for  a  sign  from  heaven. 
To  the  corruiiting  influence  of  Pliarisaisin  and 
Sadducecism  or  of  political  Herodianism — i.  e. 
to  the  spirit  that  was  manifested  in  tliese  forms 
— it  was  due  that  Israel  had  departed  from  God, 
and  had  so  lost  all  spiritual  sense  of  him  as  to 
be  clamoring  for  signs  from  heaven.  So  the 
warning  means,  "Beware  of  the  unspiritual, 
irreligious,  godless  teaching  through  which  it 
has  come  to  pass  that  God  is  no  longer  recog- 
nized." Reflecting  on  the  conversation  that 
had  sent  him,  disheartened,  back  from  Galilee, 
he  thought  of  liis  own  discijjles,  who  were  but 
too  prone  to  a  similar  unbelief;  and  he  said  to 
liimself,  "  They  must  not  be  possessed  by  the 


ungodly  blindness  that  cannot  perceive  a  spirit- 
ual meaning  and  is  dependent  upon  signs  to 
show  them  God  and  truth.  Yet  the  land  is  full 
of  it  under  the  influence  of  this  unh(jly  teach- 
ing, and  it  cannot  fail  to  be  working  as  a  leaven 
in  their  minds."  Therefore  he  spoke  in  warn- 
ing. 

16.  According  to  the  most  probable  reading, 
adopted  by  the  revisers,  we  may  translate,  And 
they  reasoned,  or  considered,  together,  "say- 
ing. We  liave  no  bread."  The  common  English 
version.  It  is  because  we  have  no  bread, 
represents  the  spirit  of  their  utterance  perfectly, 
though  not  a  good  translation.  They  dimly 
supposed  he  must  mean  that  food  received  from 
the  hands  of  his  enemies  was  to  be  rejected,  be- 
cause of  the  unwortliiness  of  those  who  might 
oflFer  it :  if  Pliarisees  and  Herodians  were  so 
defiled,  they  were  not  fit  persons  for  them  to 
obtain  food  from.  "  There  is  a  childish  naivete 
in  tlieir  self-questioning  which  testifies  to  tlie 
absolute  originality  and  truthfulness  of  the 
record,  and  so  to  the  genuineness  of  the  ques- 
tion that  follows — a  question  tliat  assumes  the 
reality  of  tlie  two  previous  miracles  "  {Plumptre). 
They  tried  to  understand  him,  but  this  low  and 
uncharacteristic  meaning  was  all  tliat  they 
could  find,  as  if  he  had  said,  "  You  will  have 
bread  to  buy,  and  you  must  be  careful  from 
whom  you  buy  it,"  and  had  forbidden  them  to 
eat  tlie  liread  of  his  enemies. 

17-21.  jMark's  report  here  is  much  more  full 
than  Mattliew's.  The  last  two  questions  of 
verse  17  are  peculiar  to  Mark,  and  so  is  the 
whole  of  verse  18,  with  the  exception  of  the 
last  word  ;  so  are  the  responses  of  the  disciples 
in  verses  19  and  20,  and  so  is  verse  21.  The 
tran.slation  of  verses  18,  19,  according  to  Tisch- 
endorf's  text,  is,  "  Having  eyes  do  ye  not  see, 
and  having  ears  do  ye  not  hear,  and  do  ye  not 
remember  when  I  broke  the  five  loaves  unto  the 
five  tliousand,  and  how  many  baskets  full  of 
fragments  ye  took  up?"    The  readings  of  verse 


Ch.  VIII.] 


MARK. 


115 


22  H  And  he  cometh  to  Bethsaida ;  and  they  bring  a 
blind  man  unto  him,  and  besought  hiiu  to  touch  hiiu.o 


22     And  they  come  unto  Bethsaida.    And  they  bring 
to  him  a  blind  man,  and  beseech  him  to  touch  him. 


a  laa.  36  :  5,  6 ;  Matt.  11  :  ; 


21  vary,  hut,  according  to  the  most  prohahle, 
the  question  is  simi)ly,  "  Do  ye  not  yet  under- 
stand?" Tlicse  questions  of  Jesus  are  sliarp 
and  cutting,  full  of  surprise  and  indignation. 
So  far  as  the  record  goes,  they  are  the  shari)est 
words  that  he  ever  spoke  to  the  twelve.  We 
can  scarcely  wonder  at  liis  indignation,  fiir  he 
saw  already  in  them  the  leaven  of  the  Phar- 
isees, the  same  bliiuliiess  that  had  just  dis- 
heartened him,  in  their  inability  to  perceive  a 
spiritual  meaning.  They  were  like  the  gen- 
eration that  was  described  in  chap.  4  :  12, 
which,  having  eyes,  saw  not,  and  having  cars 
heard  not.  Whatever  meaning  they  might 
have  found  in  his  warning,  the  one  that 
they  did  find  was  one  that  their  experience 
with  him  ought  to  have  rendered  impossible. 
They  had  been  with  him  twice  when  he  fed 
thousands  from  a  handful,  yet  they  were  talk- 
ing perplexedly  among  themselves,  as  if  he 
could  possibly  be  thinking  of  where  the  food 
was  to  come  from.  Ilis  rel)uke  means,  "  When 
you  are  with  me,  and  I  am  responsible  for  your 
want  of  food,  you  need  have  nt)  anxiety,  and 
you  may  know  that  whatever  I  may  say  refers 
to  something  else  than  the  way  in  which  food 
is  to  be  obtained."  They  ought,  moreover,  to 
liave  known  that  he  who  hatl  plainly  abolished 
distinctions  of  food  (chap.  7 :  15)  would  not  now 
set  up  a  new  distinction  of  a  jiersonal  or  sec- 
tarian kind,  and  teach  them  that  they  would 
be  deliled  by  food  bougiit  from  ungodly  men. 
Surely  it  would  seem  to  be  asking  but  very  little 
to  ask  that  they  should  understand  him  well 
enough  to  escape  such  an  idea.  Here  was  in- 
deed the  unspiritual  heart,  upon  which  the 
spiritual  thought  seemed  almost  wasted.  More 
than  in  the  ca.se  of  his  townsmen  at  Nazareth, 
he  "  marvelled  because  of  their  unbelief."  If 
Christian  teachers  find  even  their  brethren  slow 
of  perception  in  siuritual  things,  they  may  hear 
their  Miuster  saying  to  them,  in  the  spirit  of 
John  15  :  IS,  "  Ye  know  that  they  misunder- 
stood me  before  they  misunderstood  you." — In 
Matthew  the  linal  (pic-^tion,  "  Do  ye  not  yet  im- 
derstand?"  is  expanded  into  a  direct  intimation 
that  the  warning  did  not  refer  to  bread.  Mat- 
thew adds  also  that  they  did  at  la.st  perceive 
that  he  was  warning  them  against  the  teaching 
or  the  principles  of  the  Pharisees  and  Saddu- 
cees.  But  it  is  quite  certain  that  they  did  not 
take  in  his  full  meaning,  and  that  when  the 
subject  was  dropped  he  knew  that  his  utterance 


J  had  not  reached  its  aim.  He  had  had  to  ex- 
j  pcnd  the  energy  that  might  have  been  given  to 
the  work  of  enforcing  an  idea  in  the  vain  effort  to 
get  it  apprehended,  and  then  to  withdraw  baffled 
by  the  unreceptiveness  of  his  hearei-s.  It  Wiis 
not  his  method  to  urge  truth  upon  them  fa.ster 
than  they  were  able  to  receive  it.  John  l(j  :  12 
illustrates  his  real  method  :  "  I  have  yet  many 
things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear 
them  now." — Observe,  again,  the  distinct  refer- 
ence in  these  (juestions  to  the  two  separate 
miracles  of  feeding— a  reference  which  cannot 
possibly  be  removed  from  the  pa.ssage  without 
utterly  destroying  one  of  the  luost  vivid  and 
self-witnessing  scenes  in  the  whole  Gospel  nar- 
rative. Observe,  again,  too,  that  in  referring 
here  to  the  first  miracle  Je.sus  employs  the  word 
cophiniu'f  in  mentioning  the  baskets,  and  in  re- 
ferring to  the  second  the  word  s/mrix,  jire.serving 
the  very  distinction  that  has  been  made  in  the 
two  narratives  of  Mark. 

22-26.  ARRIVAL  AT  BETHSAIDA, 
WHERE  A  BLIND  MAN  18  HEALED.— 
The  narrative  is  peculiar  to  Mark,  and  is  full 
of  interesting  resemblances  to  the  story  of  the 
healing  of  the  deaf-and-dumb  man  in  Decap- 
olis,  at  chap.  7  :  32-37.  It  is  one  of  Mark's 
most  graphic  and  characteristic  pieces  of  nar- 
ration, and  certainly  comes  from  an  eye- 
witness. 

22,  And  he  cometh— or  as  the  revi.sers,  on 
textual  authority,  render  it,  "they  come" — to 
Bethsaida.  The  narrative  follows  contin- 
uously upon  the  preceding;  from  Dalmanutha 
they  proceeded  directly  by  water  to  Bethsaida, 
where  they  landed.  Here  we  reach  again,  as 
at  chap.  0  :  45,  the  old  puzzle  as  to  the  site  or 
sites  of  Bethsaida.  In  that  i>as.sage  the  com- 
pany of  Jesus  seek  Betlisaida  by  boat,  going  to 
it  from  the  ea.stern  shore  on  the  way  to  Cajier- 
naum ;  and  the  going  to  it  is  identified  with 
going  toward  the  other  side.  Here  they 
seek  Bethsaida  by  boat,  going  to  it,  in  the  op- 
posite direction,  from  a  point  near  Capernaum  ; 
and  again  the  going  to  it  is  identified  with  go- 
ing to  the  other  side.  (Compare  verses  13 
and  22.)  Thus  it  appears  first  to  have  been  on 
the  western  side  of  the  lake,  and  then  on  the 
eastern.  It  is  no  wonder  that  two  towns  of  the 
same  name  were  suj>jiosed  to  liave  been  neces- 
sar>'  to  fulfil  these  conditions ;  but  no  other 
evidence  of  the  existence  of  two  such  towns 
was  ever  discovered,  and  the  manifest  improb- 


116 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


23  And  he  took  the  blind  man  by  the  hand,  and  led 
him  out  of  the  town  ;  and  when  he  had  spit"  on  his 
eyes,  and  put  his  hands  upon  him,  he  asked  him  if  he 
saw  ought. 

24  And  he  looked  up,  and  said,  V  see  men  as  trees, 
■walking. 

25  After  that  he  put  his  hands  again  upon  his  eyes, 
and  made  him  look  up :  and  he  was  restored,  and  saw<= 
every  man  clearly. 

26  And  he  sent  him  away  to  his  house,  saying,  Neither 
go  into  the  town,  nor  tell  it  to  any  in  the  town. 


23  And  he  took  hold  of  the  blind  man  by  the  hand, 

and  brought  him  out  of  the  village ;  and  when  he 
had  spit  on  his  eyes,  and  laid  his  hands  upon  him, 

24  he  asked  him,  .'»eest  thou  aught?   And  he  looked  up, 
and  said,  I  see  men  ;  for  I  behold  tfifvi  as  trees,  walk- 

2.1  in g.    Then  again  he  laid  his  hands  upon  his  eyes; 

and  he  looked  stedfastly,  and  was  restored,  and  saw 
26  all  things  clearly.     And  he  sent  him  away  to  his 

home,  saying.  Do"  not  even  enter  into  the  village. 


ich.  7 


...5  Judg.  9:3B;  Isa.  29  :  18;  1  Cor.  13  :  11,  12 c  Prov.  4  :  18  ;  Isa.  32  :  3  ;  1  Pet.  2  ; 


ability  of  two  towns  of  the  same  name  on  the 
shores  of  one  lake  is  very  great.  But  all  the 
narratives  can  be  reconciled  and  all  the  allu- 
sions accounted  for  by  placing  the  one  town  of 
Bethsaida  at  the  northern  end  of  the  lake,  where 
the  Jordan  enters  it.  This  Bethsaida  has  always 
been  known  under  the  name  of  "  Bethsaida- 
Julias."  It  lay  mainly  on  the  eastern  side  of 
the  Jordan,  and  this  eastern  part  was  rebuilt 
and  beautified  by  Herod  the  Tetrarch,  who  gave 
it  the  name  "Julias,"  after  a  daughter  of  the  em- 
peror. This  eastern  part  was  not  in  Galilee ;  but 
by  the  simple  and  natural  supposition  that  the 
town  lay  partly  on  the  western  side  of  the  river 
it  is  easy  to  account  for  the  allusions  to  it  as  a 
city  of  Galilee,  as  in  John  12  :  21.  This  place 
would  be  on  tlie  way  from  the  scene  of  the 
first  feeding  of  the  multitude  to  Capernaum, 
and  yet  would  be  on  the  other  side  from  Ca- 
pernaum and  Dalmanutha.  (See  the  whole 
question  clearly  discussed  in  TJie  Land  and  the 
Book,  2.  29-32 ;  see,  also,  Andrews,  Life  of  Our 
Lord,  pp.  211-218.)  — The  name  Bethsaida 
means  "  house  offish,"  and  indicates  the  origin 
and  character  of  the  town.  It  was  a  fishing- 
village,  and  doubtless  lay  close  to  the  wat-er's 
edge.  This  was  the  home  of  Peter,  Andrew, 
and  Philip  (johni:t4) — i.  e.  the  early  home,  be- 
fore the  days  of  discipleship.  Mark  1  :  29  tells 
of  a  home  of  Peter  and  Andrew  in  Capernaum. 
—And  they  bring  a  blind  man  unto  him. 
The  request  is,  as  usual,  fur  a  touch ;  but  he 
takes  his  own  way.  This  miracle  is  the  only 
one  expressly  mentioned  of  the  "  mighty  works  " 
done  in  Bethsaida  to  which  Jesus  referred  in 
Matt.  11  :  21.  The  mighty  works  done  in  Cho- 
razin  do  not  appear  at  all,  except  in  that  allu- 
sion ;  .so  that  this  act  alona  represents  the  whole 
double  group. 

33-26,  Concerning  the  man  himself  we  can 
gather  oyly  that  he  was  not  born  blind,  and 
that  his  home  was  somewhere  outside  of  the 
town  of  Bethsaida.  In  this  work  of  healing 
(1)  do  we  not  see  a  ])eruliar  tenderness?  He 
took  the  blind  man  by  the  hand,  and  led 
him  out  of  the  town,  or,  rather,  "village." 
If  wc  picture  to  ourselves  the  scene,  we  see 


Jesus  leading  the  blind — actually  leading  him 
by  the  hand  and  serving  as  guide  to  one  who 
cannot  see  his  way.  He  leads  him,  the  man 
knows  not  whither.  Here  is  a  touch,  which 
was  asked  fjr,  but  it  is  not  the  touch  of  heal- 
ing; yet  it  is  an  exceedingly  precious  touch, 
revealing  a  tender  kindness  in  which  the  man 
may  well  have  found  a  constraining  and  help- 
ful influence.  Such  friendly  nearness  of  the 
great  Healer  would  surely  be  a  help  to  the  faith 
which  he  desired  to  awaken.  (2)  Here  is  i^ri- 
vacy  amounting  to  secrecy.  As  before  (chap.  7 :  33), 
he  took  the  man  away  from  the  freqiaentcd 
place  in  the  village  and  wrought  the  cure  in 
private — perhaps  in  order  to  secure  the  greater 
impressiveness  of  solitude  and  quiet  for  the  man 
himself — and  after  the  cure  he  forbade  him  to 
go  back  into  the  village  and  sent  him  in  silence 
to  his  own  home,  which  was  elsewhere.  The 
last  clause  of  verse  26,  nor  tell  it  to  any  in 
the  town,  should  be  omitted.  The  reason  for 
this  secrecy  was  the  usual  reason,  onlj'  modified 
a  little  by  the  circumstances — the  desire  to  avoid 
needless  excitement.  Rejected  afresh  in  Galilee 
and  now  withdrawing  again  from  that  region 
with  his  disciples,  he  was  naturally  inclined  to 
withdraw  quietly,  and  would  particularly  avoid 
making  any  stir  about  himself  and  his  move- 
ments in  Bethsaida.  (3)  Here,  again,  is  the 
choice  of  his  own  peculiar  and  unexpected 
means  of  healing,  instead  of  the  means  that 
were  proposed.  It  I'eminds  one  of  Naaman  and 
Elisha  (2  Kings  5 :  10, 11).  (4)  Here  is  the  emi)loy- 
ment,  as  in  the  similar  case,  of  external  media, 
appealing  to  the  senses,  and  especially  to  the 
senses  of  which  the  stifferer  was  possessed.  He 
.  .  .  spit  on  his  eyes,  signifying  thereby  the 
transference  of  something  from  liimself  to  the 
blind  man.  The  man  could  feel  this  sign  of 
transference,  and  cotald  feel  it  coming  directly 
to  the  part  that  needed  the  gift  of  healing. 
There  is  no  allusion  here  to  any  stipposed  heal- 
ing power  in  saliva ;  the  tise  of  the  .saliva  is 
purely  symbolic  or  pictorial,  to  represent  tlie 
impartation  of  something  from  person  to  per- 
son. The  man  could  also  feel,  as  he  had  ex- 
I  pected  to  feel,  the  imposition  of  the  Healer's 


Ch.  VIIL] 


MARK. 


117 


htiiids.  It  must  have  been  a  solemn,  tender 
touch,  h)ving  as  tlie  touch  of  a  mother's  liands, 
in  which  the  suflferer  could  not  fail  to  perceive 
as  a  ])resent  reality  the  Saviour's  joy  in  the  act 
of  healing.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  only  in 
these  two  similar  miracles,  recorded  by  Mark 
alone,  do  tiie  synoptists  refer  to  the  use  of  Saliva 
as  an  external  medium  in  healing,  and  that  this 
is  a  link  to  connect  the  Gospel  of  I^Iark  with  that 
of  John,  who  has  a  similar  narrative  (jobu9:6). 
(5)  There  is  here  a  singular  and  quite  unjiaral- 
leled  progressiveness  in  the  healing,  with  an 
appearance  of  tentativeness  on  the  part  of 
Jesus.  Nowhere  else  do  we  find  the  progress 
of  such  a  work  tested  by  question  and  answer. 
After  sj)itting  upon  his  eyes  and  placing  his 
hands  once  upon  them,  Jesus  asked  the  man 
if  he  saw  ought,  as  if  his  work  this  time 
were  tentatively  done  and  he  were  watching 
for  the  result  with  an  interest  like  that  of  a 
loving  physician.  May  we  think  that  this  was 
done  from  a  kind  of  tender  interest  in  the  act 
of  healing,  a  loving  delight  in  seeing  the  lost 
power,  not  only  restored,  but  in  the  very  act,  as 
it  were,  of  coming  back?  Is  it  wrong  to  think 
of  our  Saviour  as  sometimes  bending  delight- 
edly over  one  whom  he  was  healing,  and  giving 
to  himself  the  pleasure  of  love  in  watching  the 
progress  of  his  gracious  work  ?  If  we  do  admit 
such  a  supposition,  it  will  not  prevent  us  from 
recognizing  the  other  motive — namely,  the  pur- 
pose to  make  partial  healing  a  help  to  the  man's 
faith  in  the  coming  perfect  restoration.  (G)  The 
man's  answer  to  the  question  whether  he  saw 
anything  is,  according  to  the  revisers'  text,  "  I 
see  men  ;  for  I  behold  them  as  trees,  walking" 
— i.  e.  "  I  see  men — I  know  they  must  be  men, 
because  they  are  beings  that  walk — but  they 
are  large  and  vague,  like  trees;  I  cannot  see 
them  clearly."  The  reply  is  simply  perfect  in 
its  naturalness.  So  fresh  and  inimitable  an  an- 
swer is  one  of  the  strongest  possible  confirma- 
ti(ms  of  the  story ;  it  corresponds  perfectly  to 
the  state  of  one  whose  vision  is  half  restored. 
The  man  had  seen  before ;  he  remembered  men 
and  he  remembered  trees ;  but  thus  far  his  new  1 
sight  scarcely  enabled  him  to  tell  one  from  the 
other.  (7)  Something  more  was  needed,  and 
another  touch  of  the  Healer's  hands  was  given. 
He  put  his  hands  again  upon  his  eyes, 
intimating,  what  has  not  been  said  before,  that 
the  tirst  touch  also  was  upon  the  eyes.  The  de- 
scription of  the  completed  cure  is  somewhat 
changed  and  made  more  vivid  in  the  best  text. 
Instead  of  and  made  him  look  up,  etc.,  we 
should  read,  as  in  tlie  Revision,  "and  he  looked 
steadfastly,  and  was  restored,  and  saw  "  (or  be- 


gan to  .see)  "all  things  clearly,"  or  else  "afar 
off."  It  is  difficult  to  judge  between  two  read- 
ings of  the  final  adverl),  differing  only  by  a  sin- 
gle letter  {tHaiujos  and  dilaiujos).  One  means 
"  with  clear  sight,"  and  the  other  "  with  far 
sight."  After  the  second  imposition  of  the 
hands  the  man  gave  an  intense  and  se&rciiing 
look,  which  fixed  itself  ineffaceably  upon  the 
memory  of  the  eye-witness  whose  report  is  here 
given;  and  then  he  saw  (imperfect  tense),  or 
began  to  see,  everything  (not  every  man)  dis- 
tinctly. The  restoration  was  perfect.  (8)  The 
man  was  sent  to  his  home,  not  merely  to  avoid 
public  excitement,  but  undoubtedly  in  part  for 
his  own  sake :  he  needed  quiet  rather  than  the 
tunmlt  of  the  town  and  the  risk  of  being  made 
a  i)ubli(!  spectacle. — How  iiuich  did  the  man 
understand  of  all  this?  Of  what  kind  was  his 
faith  ?  We  have  no  hint  of  any  faith  at  all, 
except  such  as  is  indicated  by  his  putting  him- 
self in  the  hands  of  Jesus.  We  can  neither  re- 
press nor  answer  the  ciuestion,  Into  what  kind 
of  relation  to  his  Healer  was  he  brought  by  this 
experience?  Is  it  credible  that  any  whom  he 
had  liealed  were  among  those  who  cried,  "  Cru- 
cify him  "  ?  Why  not  ?  since  he  certainly  heal- 
ed many  who  had  but  the  faintest  knowledge 
of  his  spiritual  character  and  grace.  May  they 
not  have  turned  against  him? — It  is  worthy  of 
notice  that  here,  and  almost  here  alone,  wlien 
Jesus  enjoined  secrecy  after  a  miracle,  we  do 
not  read  that  the  injunction  was  disregarded. 
It  does  not  appear  that  any  great  excitement 
was  awakened  in  Bethsaida,  or  that  Jesus  lin- 
gered there. 

27-30.  JOURNF.Y  TO  CiESAREA  PIIII^ 
IPPI;  CONFESSION  OF  PETER.  Parallels, 
Matt.  16  :  13-20;  Luke  9  :  18-21.— There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  any  delay,  at'  Bethsaida  or 
elsewhere.  When  Jesus  left  Dalinanutha  he 
was  setting  out  for  a  journey  that  woidd  take 
him  to  a  distant  region,  and  probably  he  jire.ssed 
on  at  once.  It  was  a  sad  journey.  The  ministry 
in  Galilee  had  ended  in  the  carnal  misconcep- 
tions that  are  represented  in  the  events  recorded 
in  the  sixth  chajiter  of  John — tlie  eagerness  to 
make  him  a  king  and  the  stolid  ignorance  re- 
specting his  spiritual  truth  and  purposes.  The 
journey  to  Sidon  had  followed,  and  the  recep- 
tion OTi  his  return  had  been  the  old  demand, 
promj)tly  renewed,  for  a  sign  from  heaven — a 
demand  of  pure  spiritual  blindness.  Galilee 
had  failed  to  receive  him  in  his  true  character; 
and  very  little  more  in  Galilee  did  he  ever  do. 
Now  he  was  .setting  out  for  another  wandering 
in  a  distant  land,  with  only  his  little  band  of 
followers,  and  was  leaving,  apparently,  no  large 


118 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


27  If  And  Jesus"  went  out,  and  his  disciples,  into  the 
towns  of  Csesarea  Philippi :  and  by  the  way  he  asked 
his  disciples,  saying  unto  theui.  Whom  do  men  say 
that  I  am? 

'28  And  they  answered,  John'  the  Baptist :  but  some 
say,  Elias ;  and  others,  One  of  the  prophets. 


27  And  Jesus  went  forth,  and  his  disciples,  into  the 
villages  of  Csesarea  Philippi :  and  in  the  way  he 
asked  his  disciples,  saying  unto  them.  Who  do  men 

28 say  that  I  am?  And  they  told  him,  saying,  John 
the  Baptist:  and  others,  Elijah;  but  others.  One  of 


a  Matt.  16 :  l.S,  etc. ;  Luke  9  :  18,  etc b  Matt.  11 :  12. 


satisfactory  results  of  his  ministry  behind  him. 
"He  was  despised  and  rejected  of  men."  We 
shall  not  understand  the  events  of  this  journey 
unless  we  thus  recognize  its  actual  place  in  our 
Lord's  personal  history.  The  whole  scene  is 
presented  with  great  power  in  Philochristus 
(chap,  xx),  though  possibly  with  some  exag- 
geration of  this  true  idea  of  sadness  in  the 
journey. 

27.  Into  the  towns  of  Csesarea  Philip- 
pi. The  distance  from  Capernaum  to  Coesarea 
Philippi  was  not  great — not  more  than  thirty 
or  forty  miles — but  the  place  seemed  remote, 
because  it  was  at  the  very  border  of  the  Jewish 
land,  or,  strictly,  just  beyond  the  border.  Jesus 
must  have  passed  near  it,  if  not  through  it,  on 
his  way  soutliward  from  Sidon  a  little  while 
before.  It  is  not  expressly  asserted  here  that 
the  present  joitrney  took  him  to  the  town  itself, 
but  neither  is  it  denied.  He  went  to  the  towns 
— or,  rather,  "the  villages"  (Matthew,  "the 
parts"  or  region) — of  Caesarea  Philippi— )".  e. 
to  the  surrounding  villages  that  were  dependent 
upon  it.  —  Caesarea  Philippi,  or  "Philip's 
Caesarea."  A  very  ancient  place  at  one  of  the 
sources  of  the  Jordan.  There  one  of  the  streams 
that  make  up  the  river  springs  forth  from  the 
rock  at  the  mouth  of  a  wide  and  lofty  cavern. 
This  cavern  has  a  long  history  as  a  sacred  place. 
The  name  of  the  spot,  as  given  by  Josephus,  is 
Paniurn,  which,  doubtless,  tells  the  story  that 
the  cave  was  once  sacred  to  the  god  Pan.  The 
I)lace  is  not  certainly  mentioned  in  the  Old 
Testament,  but  is  thought  prol)ably  to  be  iden- 
tical with  Baal-gad,  whicli  appears  io  have 
been  a  Phoenician  or  Canaanite  sanctuary  long 
before  the  Greek  god  Pan  was  known  there. 
Tliere  Herod  the  Great  erected  a  splendid  tem- 
ple of  white  marble,  which  he  dedicated  to  the 
worship  of  Augustus  Ctesar;  and  Philij),  the 
tetrarch  of  Trachonitis,  his  son,  in  whose  terri- 
tory the  place  lay,  rebuilt  the  town  and  named 
it  Csesarea  Philippi,  in  honor  of  the  emperor 
and  of  liiinself,  adding  his  own  name  to  distin- 
guish it  from  the  Cajsarea  on  the  shore  of  the 
Mediterranean,  so  important  in  the  history  of 
the  apostles.  The  ancient  name  lias  returned 
in  place  of  the  more  recent,  and  the  village  is 
now  known  as  Bani.ns.  The  spot  is  one  of  ex- 
traordinary natural  beauty.    In  our  Lord's  time 


the  town  itself  was,  of  course,  a  gay  Roman 
town  full  of  paganism.  As  there  is  no  sign  that 
he  ever  set  foot  within  the  similar  town  of  Ti- 
berias, near  to  Capernaum,  so  it  miglit  be  con- 
jectured as  intrinsically  probable  that  he  did 
not  go  beyond  the  "  villages"  of  Cajsarea  Phil- 
ippi to  the  city  itself.  It  has  often  been  ob- 
served, though  of  course  it  is  purely  conjecttiral, 
that  the  magniticent  temple  on  the  cliff,  in 
sight  as  he  was  speaking,  may  have  suggested 
the  simile  of  Matt.  16  :  18 :  "  On  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  church." 

So  far  as  we  liave  any  indication  of  his  motive  in 
choosing  this  direction  for  liis  journey,  we  may 
judge  that  he  wished  to  withdraw  his  disciples 
from  all  the  ordinary  influences,  that  they 
might  be  best  i>rei)ared  for  this  conversation. 
The  question.  Whom  do  men  say  that  I  am? 
was  asked  by  the  way.  According  to  Luke, 
he  had  been  praying  privately,  though  in  the 
presence  of  his  disciples.  Like  other  points 
that  were  specially  marked  by  jirayer  (Luke 
3  :  21  and  6  :  12 ;  Matt.  14  :  23  compared  with 
John  6  :  15),  this  was  an  important  turning- 
point  in  his  life.  The  tinst  question  was  pre- 
liminary, but  essential  to  his  purpose  in  the 
one  that  was  to  follow.  Whom  do  men  say 
that  I  am  ?  or,  in  Matthew,  according  to  the 
text  of  the  revisers,  "  Who  do  men  say  that  the 
Son  of  man  is  ?" — i.  e.  What  impression  is  abroad 
concerning  me  ?  How  far  have  the  people  gone 
toward  recognizing  me?  He  was  not  asking 
for  information :  he  knew  the  truth  only  too 
well.  He  did  not  ask  because  they  had  oppor- 
tunities for  knowing  that  he  had  not.  This 
was  only  the ,  preparation  for  the  question  con- 
cerning their  own  belief.  Both  he  and  they 
knew  the  fact,  but  he  wished  them  to  state  it. — 
Plainly,  here  was  good  reason  for  his  i>raying. 
He  was  about  to  look,  with  liis  disciples,  into 
the  results  of  his  ministry  thus  far,  that  he 
might  draw  out  tlieir  faith  and  miglit  prepare 
the  way  for  such  changes  in  the  tone  of  his 
teacliing  to  them  as  miglit  be  necessary.  This 
was  indeed  a  crisis  in  Iiis  ministry. 

28.  Three  answers  were  given,  tliree  opinions 
concerning  liim.  (1)  That  he  was  John  the 
Baptist  —  of  course,  John  the  Baptist  risen 
from  the  dead ;  for  the  fact  of  his  death  was 
notorious.  This  was  the  suspicion  that  haunted 


I 


Ch.  VIII.]                                         MARK.                                                    119 

29  And  he  saith  unto  them,  But  whom  say  ye  that  I 
am?   And  I'eler  answireth  and  saith  to  him,  Thou"  art 
the  Christ. 

29  the  prophets.    And  he  asked  tliem,  But  who  say  ye 
that  1  am?    Peter  auswereth  and  saith  unto  him, 

a  John  1  :  41-49;  6:69;  11:27;  Acta  8  :  37  ;  IJohu  5  :  1. 

Herod's  guilty  conscience,  and  here  it  appears 
again,  a.s  at  Luke  9  :  7,  that  it  was  a  rumor 
among  tiie  people  somewhat  well  known.  (2) 
That  he  was  Elias,  or  Elijah,  who  was  ex- 
pected to  appear  as  the  forerunner  of  the  Mes- 
siah, according  to  the  common  understanding 
of  -Mai.  4  :  5,  (J.  f3)  That  he  was  one  of  the 
prophets.  In  Matthew,  "  Jeremiah,  or  one 
of  the  prophets;"  in  Luke,  "one  of  the  old 
prophets  is  risen  again."  The  three  answers, 
closely  parallel  to  chap.  6  :  14,  15,  substantially 
agree  in  one.  The  j)oj)ular  sentiment  went  so 
far  as  to  see  in  him  some  forerunner  of  the 
Christ,  some  great  l)ut  inferior  one ;  but  they 
could  not  tell  liim  that  it  went  farther.  Occa- 
sional manifestations  of  a  deeper  conviction 
there  miglit  be,  as  in  the  effort  to  make  him 
a  king  (johu  e :  15) ;  but  even  that  poor  and  carnal 
recognition  of  tlie  Messiah  was  beyond  the  or- 
dinary and  habitual  feeling  of  the  people.  "  He 
was  in  the  world,  and  the  world  was  made  by 
him,  and  the  world  knew  liim  not."  They  did 
not  yet  own  or  see  that  he  was  the  Christ. 

29.  There  are  some  marks  of  solemn  em- 
phasis in  this  second  (juestion.  Li  Mark  the 
pronouns  are  both  expressed  in  the  preparatory 
sentence,  And  he  saith  unto  them,  a  some- 
what unusual  fulness  in  so  simple  a  statement. 
?.Ioreover,  while  the  first  question  is  reported 
with  slight  variations  by  the  three  evangelists, 
and  while  the  same  is  true  of  Peter's  answer, 
inii)ortant  as  it  is,  this  second  question  is  iden- 
tical in  words  and  order  in  the  three  repoi-ts ; 
as  if  the  very  words  had  been  so  uttered  by  the 
Lord  that  no  memory  could  lose  them. — But 
whom  say  ye  that  I  am  ?  with  the  strongest 
emphasis  on  the  ye.  "Are  ye  ready  to  say 
what  the  people  will  not  say?  Do  ye  know 
with  whom  ye  liave  been  walking?  Having 
eyes,  do  ye  see?  and  having  eai"s,  do  ye  hear? 
Have  I  succeeded,  or  failed,  in  making  myself 
known  to  you?"  Just  before  the  journey  to 
Sidon,  Peter  had  sjjoken  a  satisfactory  word  of 
faith  (John  6 :  68,  69).  That  word  was  spoken,  too, 
in  a  dark  day,  when  many  were  going  away 
disheartened  at  the  hard  sayings  of  Jesus ;  and 
that  word  then  represented  the  convictions  and 
the  constancy  of  the  twelve.  But  now  the  days 
were  even  darker  than  then  ;  and  were  the 
twelve  .still  sure  of  their  ground?  Was  their 
apprehension  of  him  clear  and  strong  enough 
to  command  their  hearts    ami  hold   them  to 


constancy  when,  if  they  were  constant,  they 
must  stand  so  nearly  alone?  It  was  time,  in 
the  progress  of  his  life  with  them,  for  the  (ques- 
tion to  be  asked,  and  asked  most  searchingly. 
If  they  were  ready,  there  were  some  great 
things  to  be  told  them.  Moreover,  now,  in 
the  day  of  comparative  desertion,  was  the 
time  to  lay  in  them  the  foundation  of  such  a 
faith  as  they  had  never  before  had.  Now, 
therefore,  if  it  was  in  them  to  do  it,  they 
might  take  a  great  step  forward  in  apprehend- 
ing his  kingdom,  and  he  in  founding  it ;  or  they 
might  give  evidence  that  it  was  in)t  in  them  to 
take  such  a  step.  It  was  a  great  moment  with 
him,  and  a  critical  moment  with  them,  when 
he  asked  them.  Whom  say  ye  that  I  am? 
The  spirit  of  the  scene  is  well  represented  in 
Philochristus  (pp.  248,  249) :  "  We  seemed  in  that 
moment  to  have  been  brought  by  the  hand  of 
the  Lord  into  a  place  where  two  roads  met  and 
we  had  to  choose  one  of  the  two.  And  if  we 
went  by  the  one,  behold  we  had  against  us,  not 
only  Rome  and  Greece  and  the  whole  inhabited 
world,  but  also  the  i)rinces  of  our  own  people, 
and  the  priests  and  the  i)atriots,  and  the  tradi- 
tions, also,  of  our  forefathers,  handed  down 
through  many  hundreds  of  years,  and  the  law 
given  unto  us  by  God  for  which  many  genera- 
tions of  our  countrymen  had  fought  and  died  ; 
yea,  even  Moses  liimself  seemed  to  be  an  adver- 
sary if  we  went  by  that  road.  But  on  the  other 
road  no  one  stood  against  us  ;  only  we  saw  not 
Jesus  there.  So  the  conclusion  seemed  to  be 
that  we  had  in  that  instant  to  choose  between 
Jesus  and  all  the  world.  And,  as  I  judge,  even 
for  this  cause  did  the  Lord  lead  us  into  tlie 
wilderness  together  with  our  Master  in  sorrow 
and  in  exile,  to  the  intent  that  there,  being 
apart  from  the  world,  we  might  weigh,  as  it 
were  in  a  balance,  on  the  one  side  all  the  world, 
and  on  the  other  side  the  Son  of  man — a  man 
of  sufferings  and  sorrows ;  a  man  of  wander- 
ings and  exiles,  acipiainted  with  rejections  and 
contempts — and  then  that,  having  weighed  the 
two,  we  might  jirefer  the  Son  of  man.  because 
of  a  certain  voice  in  our  licarts  which  cried 
within  us,  '  Whom  have  we  in  lieaven  but 
thee?  and  there  is  none  on  earth  that  we  de- 
sire in  comparison  of  thee.'  And  tliis,  I  judge, 
was  the  faith  that  Jesus  desiretl  of  us;  and  to 
this  faith  was  the  Lord  leading  our  hearts  while 
Jesus  was  patiently  waiting  for  our  answer." 


120 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


30  And  he  charged  them  that  they  should  tell  no 
man  of  him. 

31  And  ho  began  to  teach  them,  that  the  Son  of  man 
must  suli'er  many  things,  and  be  rejected  of  the  elders, 
and  r/the  chief  priests,  and  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and 
after  three  days  rise  again. 


30  Thou  art  the  Christ.    And  he  charged  them  that 

31  they  should  tell  no  man  of  him.  And  he  began  to 
teach  them,  that  the  ^^on  of  man  must  sutler  many 
things,  and  be  rejected  by  the  elders,  and  the  chief 
priests,  and  the  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and  after  three 


The  answer  came,  as  usual  from  the  lips  of 
Peter.  Thou  art  the  Christ.  In  Luke,  "the 
Christ  of  God ;"  m  Matthew,  most  fully,  and, 
as  one  cannot  help  thinking,  in  the  very  words 
that  he  used,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  living  God."  No  forerunner,  however  great ; 
no  Elijah,  and  no  prophet ;  no  "  messenger  be- 
fore thy  face,  to  prepare  thy  way  before  thee;" 
but  the  Messiah  hiiuself,  the  Lord  come  to  his 
temple,  the  King  coming  to  his  throne.  Great 
words  were  these — words  of  recognition  and  al- 
legiance. Great  was  it  in  the  esteem  of  Jesus 
to  recognize  him  in  his  divine  mission.  (Com- 
pare John  16  :  27,  where  he  gives  utterance  to 
this  estimate  of  true  recognition  :  "  The  Father 
himself  loveth  you,  because  ye  have  loved  me, 
and  have  believed  that  I  came  out  from  God.") 
Quite  worthy  was  such  a  confession  of  the  joy- 
fully-uttered benediction  of  Jesus,  recorded 
only  by  Matthew  :  "  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon 
Bar-jona :  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed 
it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heav- 
en." The  joy  of  Jesus  and  the  benediction 
are  in  the  spirit  of  Matt.  13  :  16 :  "  Blessed  are 
your  eyes,  for  they  see."  This  confession, 
prompted  by  no  public  enthusiasm,  made  in  a 
lonely  place  and  at  a  time  when  friends  were 
few,  pledged  the  allegiance  of  the  twelve  to  Jesus 
in  his  highest  character.  In  view  of  the  dis- 
couragements of  the  time,  it  showed  most  satis- 
factorily that  they  were  at  least  capable  of 
strong  spiritual  apprehensions.  His  holy  in- 
fluence had  not  been  enjoyed  in  vain.  By  this 
confession  the  twelve  were  identified  as  the 
true  nucleus  of  his  kingdom,  and  Peter  as 
their  natural  leader.  Already  might  Jesus 
have  uttered  the  words  spoken  when  the 
seventy  returned  triumphant  and  joyful  from 
their  mission  (Luke lo: 21):  "I  thank  thee,  O 
Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  thou 
hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  i>ru- 
dent,  and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes." — 
Mark  and  Luke  abruptly  leave  the  conversation 
liere,  onntting  the  blessing  upon  Peter  and  the 
words  about  the  founding  of  the  church. 

30.  All  record,  however,  his  ban  upon  tell- 
ing of  him,  Matthew  the  most  fully:  "That 
they  tell  no  one  that  he  was  the  Christ."  For 
this,  doubtless,  there  were  more  reasons  than 
one.  The  fresh  enthusiasm  of  faith  might  be 
followed  by  an  impulse  of  proclamation ;  but 
this  was  no  time  for  that.     His  purpose  in  the 


world  was  not  to  force  recognition,  or  even  to 
urge  it,  but  rather  to  give  the  opportunity  for 
it  and  to  receive  and  guide  it  when  it  came. 
Israel,  on  the  whole,  had  not  recognized  him, 
and  no  acknowledgment  did  he  desire  but  that 
of  genuine  recognition.  Not  during  his  life- 
time did  he  desire  that  enthusiastic  disciples 
should  proclaim  to  the  unbelieving  Israel  that 
he  was  the  Chri.st ;  and  least  of  all  now,  when 
his  friends  were  but  a  handful  and  their  faith 
had  only  reached  the  point  where  it  was  ready 
to  be  trained  in  the  knowledge  of  his  actual 
purpose.  The  apostles  did  recognize  him,  but 
their  thoughts  were  still  so  far  from  spiritual 
that  they  could  not  then  be  trusted  to  proclaim 
him.  They  had  preached  his  truth  and  deliv- 
ered his  message  (chap.  6:12),  but  himself  they 
must  not  preach  until  they  understood  him 
better.  It  was  an  act  of  love  to  keep  them 
from  preaching  him  too  soon.  But  their  time 
was  coming — a  time  when  all  their  experience 
with   him  would  be  available  for  their  holy 

purpose    (John  15  ;  26,  27). 

31-9  :  1.  JESUS  FORETELLS  HIS  OWN 
PASSION,  REBUKES  PETER  FOR  DOUBT- 
ING IT,  AND  POINTS  OUT  THE  WAY  TO 
FOLLOW  HIM.  Parallels,  Matt.  16  :  21-28 ; 
Luke  9  :  22-27. — In  this  paragraph  belongs  the 
first  verse  of  chap.  9,  which  has  very  unfor- 
tunately been  severed  from  its  connection  in 
Mark  by  the  division  of  chai^ters.  In  the  other 
Gospels  the  connection  is  preserved.  The  re- 
visers have  happily  restored  it  here. 

31.  A  disciple  with  the  current  notions  about 
his  kingdom  might  suppose  that  Jesus  had 
drawn  out  the  great  confession  in  order  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  some  aggressive  movements. 
This  taking  of  the  oath,  he  might  think,  must 
have  some  promise  in  it.  True,  but  not  as  he 
might  imagine.  "  From  that  time  "  (Matthew) 
there  was  a  change  in  the  tone  of  the  Master's 
teaching.  This  questioning  at  Ca^sarea  Phil- 
ippi  meant,  not,  "  Will  you  go  with  me  to  my 
throne?"  but,  "Can  ye  drink  the  cup  that  I 
drink,  and  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that 
I  am  baptized  with?"  From  that  time  they 
were  to  hear  of  his  ajiproaching  death.  Now 
that  they  were  pledged  to  him  with  some  de- 
gree of  intelligence,  he  be^an  to  teach  them 
what  he  expected  and  what  they  must  expect. 
The  time  was  short,  and  as  soon  as  they  were 
at  all  ready  this  sad  instruction  must  begin. — 


Ch.  VIII.] 


MARK. 


121 


^2  And  ho  spake  that  sayinR  openly.  And  Peter 
took  liiiii,  ami  ln-jjan  to  n-tnike  him. 

:in  But  when  he  liad  turned  about  and  looked  on  his 
disciiiles,  he  rehuked"  Peter,  saying,  (iet  thee  behind 
me,  ."^atan  :'  for  thou  savorest  not  the  things  that  be  of 
God,  but  the  things  that  be  of  men. 


32  days  rise  again.  And  he  spake  the  saying  openly. 
And    Peter   took   him,  and    liegan   to   rebuke  him. 

3:i  Hut  he  turning  about,  and  seeing  his  disciples,  re- 
buked Peter,  and  saith,  (iet  thee  behind  me,  Satan: 
for  thou   mindest  not  the  things  of  liod,  but  the 


a  Rev.  3:19 6  1  Cor.  5:5. 


Matthew  alone  mentions  the  going  to  Jeru- 
salem to  suffer;  with  this  excepti(jn  the  three 
reports  are  of  tiie  same  effect. — The  rejeetion  is 
jjredicted  as  tlie  act  of  the  relifiious  leaders  of 
the  nation,  the  elders  and  the  chietpriests 
and  the  scribes,  not  as  the  aet  of  the  people. 
It  was  very  largely  accepted  as  the  act  of  the 
nation  (see  Matt.  27  :  25) ;  and  more  especially 
reniend)er  the  attitude  of  the  Jewish  nation 
toward  Jesus  from  the  day  of  his  crucifixion 
till  our  own  time.  Yet  Jesus  charged  it,  in  pre- 
dicting it,  upon  the  religious  guides  of  Israel, 
who  ought  to  have  had  eyes  to  see  the  Messiah's 
grace. — He  nuist  be  killed — even  for  this 
the  disciples  nuist  be  prepared — and  after 
three  days  rise  again.  The  announcement 
is  the  same  in  all  three  reports.  But  the  pre- 
diction seemed  so  enigmatical  to  the  disciples 
that  it  scarcely  took  hold  upon  their  minds, 
r^ven  the  anticiixttion  of  their  Master's  death 
never  became  a  reality  to  them,  and  the  thought 
of  his  resurrection  almost  wholly  failed  to  affect 
either  their  imagination  or  their  faith. — This 
was  the  earliest  distinct  annoinicement  of  his 
I'a.ssion.  An  intimation  of  it  had  been  given 
in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum  (John  6 :  5i),  when 
the  carnal  enthusiasm  of  the  midtitude  called 
for  such  an  utterance  of  his  real  purjiose  and 
]irosi)ects.  The  intimations  grew  clearer  and 
the  predictions  more  elaborate,  until  he  reach- 
ed tlie  saying  of  Matt.  26  :  2 :  "Ye  know  that 
after  two  days  is  the  pa.ssover,  and  the  Son  of 
man  is  betrayed  to  be  crucified." 

32.  From  Matthew  we  learn  that  such  an- 
nouncements became  habitual  "  from  that 
time;"'  but  what  follows  in  this  place  relates 
to  the  earliest  announcements,  made  so<m  after 
the  great  confession.  .\nd  he  spake  that 
saying  openly,  or  "  ])lainly."  Openly  might 
be  taken  to  mean  "publicly  ;"'  but  he  was  not 
now  sjieaking  in  public,  but  "  distinctly,"  with- 
out reserve  or  concealment.  So  the  word  is 
used  in  John  16  :  25  and  29.  The  .sentence  is 
peculiar  to  Mark,  and  preserves  an  eye-witne.ss's 
impression  of  tlie  terrible  intelligil)ility  of  his 
si)eech  ;  and  Peter  was  a  witness  who  was  likely 
to  remember.  But  to  Peter  this  seenie<l  alto- 
gether inconsistent  with  tlie  divine  destiny  of 
tlie  Christ  of  (Jod :  he  surely  must  have  a  dif- 
ferent future  from  this.    So  Paul  was  obliged 


to  have  it  for  a  part  of  his  regular  argument,  as 
against  the  Jews,  "that  the  Christ  should  suffer" 
(Acts  26  :M). — Peter,  very  naturally,  held  the  no- 
tions of  the  time,  and  was  scandalized  by  the 
"offence  of  the  cross"  beforehand,  as  his  coun- 
trymen were  long  afterward.  He  was  not  alone 
in  this  feeling;  as  his  confession  represented 
the  twelve,  so,  no  doultt,  only  too  well,  did  his 
remonstrance.  And  Peter  took  him  aside, 
beckoning  or  leading  him  away  a  little  from 
the  comi)any,  and  began  to  rebuke  him — 
began,  but  was  not  permitted  to  go  far.  Mat- 
thew alone  gives  his  words :  "  God  have  mercy 
on  thee,  Lord ;  this  shall  not  be  to  thee :"  so  note 
of  revisers.  "As  though  the  thought  of  the 
1'a.ssion  was  too  terrible  to  be  endured  even 
for  a  moment,  and  ought  to  be  dismissed  as  a 
dark  and  evil  dream"  {Plutnptrc).  Peter  sup- 
posed that  in  this  remonstrance  he  was  follow- 
ing out  the  spirit  of  his  great  confession,  for 
which  he  had  just  been  honored.  Xeither  sin- 
cerity nor  genuine  devotion  to  Christ  saved  him 
from  a  terrible  mistake.  He  wa.s  showing  to 
his  Master  a  mistaken  kindness,  a  wrong  that 
his  Master  never  did  to  him  or  to  any  other 
friend.  Mistaken  kindness  is  a.s  real  a  wrong 
as  mistaken  severity. 

33.  JIatthew,  simply,  "  But  he  turned  and 
said  to  Peter;"  Mark,  with  characteristic  mi- 
nuteness, "  But  he,  turning  about  and  seeing 
his  disciples,  rebuked  Peter,  and  said :"  .so,  cor- 
rectly, in  the  Revi.sion.  From  the  brief  private 
interview  with  Peter  he  turned  back  and  saw 
the  disciples  looking  on  and  listening,  and 
perceived  that  they  knew  what  Peter  was  say- 
ing to  him.  Tliat  made  it  more  than  a  private 
interview,  and  rendered  an  open  utterance  ne- 
cessary ;  so  lie  proceeded  to  make  an  example 
ofPeter,si)eakiiig  more  sharply,  perhaps,  though 
not  more  plainly,  than  if  they  had  l)een  alone. 
The  great  confession  had  been  made  in  the 
presence  of  all,  and  in  the  presence  of  all  he 
who  made  it  must  be  reproved. — No  rejiroof 
could  be  sharjier  than  the  one  that  he  received ; 
human  language  cannot  frame  a  shaqier.  Get 
thee  behind  me,  Satan.  Both  the  name 
Satan  and  the  sharp  command  recall  the  temp- 
tation in  the  wilderness,  where  Jesus  repelled 
the  tem]>ter  in  almost  tlie  self-same  language. 
(See  Matt.  4  :  10 ;  Luke  4:8.)    Peter  had  made 


122 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VIIL 


34  H  And  when  he  had  called  the  people  unto  him 
■with  his  disciples  also,  he  said  unto  them,  Whosoever" 
will  come  alter  me,  let  him  deny  himself,  and  take  up 
his  cross,  and  follow  me. 


34  things  of  men.  And  he  called  unto  him  the  multi- 
tude with  his  disciples,  and  said  unto  them,  If  any 
man  would  come  after  me,  let  him  deny  himself,  and 


16 :  24  ;  l.uke  U  :  23  ;  14  :  a7  ;  Tit.  2  :  12. 


a  Satan  of  himself  by  virtually  renewing  that 
temptation.  Satan  had  then  solicited  Jesus  to 
seek  tlie  kingdoms  and  glory  of  the  world  by 
turning  aside  from  the  way  of  the  cross  to  the 
way  in  wliich  he  would  lead  him  ;  and  now  his 
own  discii)le  had  vehemently  protested  against 
the  way  of  the  cross  as  a  way  of  which  he  must 
not  think.  This  was  no  other  than  the  old 
temptation,  and  the  terrible  condemnatitjii  was 
just. — According  to  Matthew,  he  added  (liter- 
ally), "  Thou  art  my  stumbling-block,"  in  which 
he  may  have  referred,  not  to  that  occasion  only, 
but  may  have  meant  that  Peter,  with  his  tem- 
perament and  views,  was  frequently  suggesting 
such  thoughts  to  him.  A  near  friend  and  a 
true  may  yet  be  constitutionally  a  stumbling- 
block,  a  suggester  of  evil  or  inferior  tilings. — 
Thou  savorest  not — "thou  minde.st  not" 
(Revision),  or  thinkest  not  of—"  the  things  of 
God,  but  the  things  of  men."  A  faithful  in- 
dication of  the  real  fault.  Peter  was  judg- 
ing by  human  standards  and  planning  for  a 
Messianic  career  that  would  satisfy  the  ideas  of 
men  which  coincided  with  his  own.  God's 
idea  was  far  diiferent,  in  accordance  with  his 
own  nature.  The  Messiah  had  been  revealed 
to  Peter  by  tlie  Heavenly  Father  (Matt.  i6:  n), 
but  God's  Messianic  idea  was  yet  to  be  revealed 
to  him.  It  was  the  intent  of  Jesus,  after  the 
great  confession,  to  unfold  and  enforce  this  di- 
vine idea  of  salvation  through  self-sacrifice  and 
death  on  the  Messiah's  part.  This  was  the  first 
lesson,  and  this,  sadly  enoitgh,  the  first  re- 
sponse. But  Peter  learned  it  afterward :  see 
his  First  E])istle  (2;2i-24and4:i2-iB). — The  word 
"savor"  (thou  savorest  not  the  things 
that  be  of  God)  is  derived  from  the  Latin 
saperc,  through  the  French  snvoir,  "  to  know," 
and  once  well  enough  represented  the  Greek 
word  pfironein,  which  means  "to  think  of," 
"  regard,"  or  "  mind,"  as  in  Rom.  8  :  5.  But  that 
sense  of  the  English  word  is  now  obsolete. — It 
is  a  very  striking  fact  that  in  the  Gospel  which 
was  pr()l)ably  written  under  Peter's  own  eye 
the  congratulation  of  Jesus  upon  his  confession 
and  the  assignment  of  his  place  in  the  church 
are  omitted,  while  this  terrible  rebuke  was  in- 
serted. We  may  learn  something  from  this 
about  the  humility  and  honesty  of  Peter's  spirit 
a.s  a  Christian ;  and  we  may  also  infer  with 
confidence  tliat  he  knew  nothing  of  any  pri- 
macy that  elevated  him  above  the  other  apos- 


tles, or  of  any  office  conferred  on  him  that  was 
essential,  practically,  in  the  constitution  of 
Christian  churches.  Any  consciousness  of  pri- 
macy would  infallibly  have  appeared  in  the 
Gospel  of  Mark. 

34.  The  brief  address  that  follows  (34-9:1)  is 
given  by  the  three  evangelists  with  verbal 
identity  in  a  few  places,  with  divergences  in 
many  places,  but  with  complete  unanimity  as 
to  the  substance.  This  address  was  intended 
for  no  inner  circle,  for  Peter  or  the  twelve; 
this  was  for  all  who  might  have  any  interest 
in  the  nature  of  his  kingdom ;  so  he  called 
the  people  unto  him  with  his  disciples 
also.  A  statement  peculiar  to  Mark.  It  in- 
dicates that  even  in  this  retirement  he  did  not 
find  solitude ;  groups  gathered  about  him  as 
he  went,  but  doubtless  this  multitude  was 
less  than  those  he  often  had  about  him  nearer 
home.  The  utterance  that  follows  was  a  delib- 
erate public  proclamation  of  the  substance  of 
what  he  had  just  said  in  private.  That  death 
was  before  him  was  no  longer  a  fact  to  be  hint- 
ed at  or  half  expressed  in  dark  allusions.  He 
had  told  it  to  his  disciples  plainly,  and  now  he 
would  tell  it  as  plainly  to  all  who  might  be  near 
him  with  the  thought  of  following  him.  He 
would  frankly  tell  them  exactly  what  they  had 
to  look  for,  and  would  enable  them  to  count  the 
cost.  Old  disciijles  and  new  alike  should  under- 
stand it. 

In  this  view,  how  indescribably  solemn  is  the 
opening !  With  the  multitude  gathered  to  hear 
some  great  saying,  he  began.  Whosoever 
will  come  after  me  (or  behind  me,  go  where 
I  am  going),  let  him  deny  himself,  and  take 
up  his  cross,  and  follow  me. — Let  him 
deny  himself—/,  e.  let  him  utterly  refuse  the 
first  place  to  thoughts  of  self-interest,  sclf-cx- 
altation,  and  everything  of  the  kind ;  let  him 
not  set  out  to  follow  me  with  any  such  thoughts 
whatever.  There  is  nothing  in  my  service  to 
encourage  or  reward  the  "  self"  that  seeks  pro- 
motion and  satisfaction  in  such  a  Messianic 
kingdom  as  is  commonly  desired.  Instead  of 
being  gratified,  all  selfish  impulses  must  be  res- 
olutely denied  and  repressed  in  the  life  to  which 
I  shall  lead.  It  is  a  self-denyhig  life;  no  one 
will  rightly  enter  it  or  long  follow  it  who  is 
not  willing  to  resist  his  own  heart  and  live  as 
naturally  he  would  not. — But  more:  let  him 
take  up  his  cross  and  follow  me.    Essen- 


Ch.  VIII.] 


MARK. 


123 


35  For"  whosoever  will  save  his  life  shall  lose  it;  but  !  35  take  up  his  cross,  and  follow  me.  For  whosoever 
whosoever  shall  lose  his  life  for  my  sake  ami  the  gos-  i  would  save  his  life  shall  lose  if,  and  whosoever  shall 
pel's,  the  same  shall  save  it.  lose  his  life  for  my  sake  and  the  gospel's  shall  save 

a  Esth.  4  :  U  ;  Matt.  10  :  3a  ;  16  :  25  ;  Luke  9  :  24 ;  17  :  33  ;  John  12  :  25 ;  2  Tim.  2:11;  4  :  6,  8 ;  Rev.  2  :  10 ;  7  :  14-17. 


tial  to  the  right  understanding  of  this  is  the 
fact  that  this  wa.s  the  first  open  announcement 
of  his  own  impending  death.  Since  he  had 
thus  definitely  confronted  and  accepted  death, 
lie  was  like  a  man  who  is  going  to  the  place  of 
execution  hearing  the  cross  upon  which  he  is  to 
he  crucified.  It  was  as  if  he  were  already  car- 
rying his  cro.ss  to  Golgotha;  he  had  accepted  it, 
and,  spiritually,  it  was  already  upon  him.  This 
fact  he  now,  for  the  first  time,  announced  to 
those  who  were  following  him,  and  he  an- 
nounced it  that  they  might  know  what  it 
would  be  to  fcjllow.  It  would  be  as  if  each 
man  took  upon  his  shoulders  the  cross  on 
which  lie  was  to  be  crucified  together  with 
Jesus,  and  walked  behind  him  to  the  place  of 
death.  In  Luke,  "  Let  him  take  up  his  cross 
daily."  Not  as  if  there  were  a  new  cross  for 
every  day — such  conceptions  rest  upon  a  com- 
plete misapiireheiision  of  tiie  word  "cross" — 
but  because  the  course  of  life  to  one  who  would 
follow  must  be  a  continuous,  daily  march  toward 
death.  Thus  the  substance  of  his  saying  is,  "  I 
declare  that  I  am  to  die,  and  I  accept  my  death. 
Whoever  wishes  to  follow  me,  let  him  know 
that  he  must  cast  off  all  thoughts  of  self-in- 
terest and  follow  as  I  go — namely,  accepting 
death."  A  similar  .saying  is  recorded  in  Luke 
14  :  20-33,  uttered  later,  when  a  crowd  was  fol- 
lowing thoughtlessly,  though  death  was  nearer. 
The  definite  and  i)rof()und  meaning  of  cross- 
bearing  in  these  passages  puts  to  shame  much 
of  the  current  modern  talk  on  the  subject.  The 
cross  was  the  implement  of  the  most  sliameful 
death,  not  of  discomfort  or  inconvenience  or 
embarrassment,  yet  it  is  often  mentioned  now 
as  if  it  merely  meant  sometliing  that  cro.sscd 
one's  likings  or  inclinations.  To  bear  the  cross 
is  actively  to  accept  (not  merely  to  submit  to) 
shame  and  sulfering  for  Christ  and  with 
Christ. 

35.  The  connective  For  indicates  that  in  this 
verse  the  principle  is  laid  down  in  ai'cordance 
with  which  it  comes  to  pass  that  one  who  would 
follow  must  bear  his  cross.  The  principle  is  that 
the  higher  welfare  of  man  can  be  secured  only  ! 
In-  subordinating  to  it  the  lower.— Whosoever 
will  save  his  life — desires  to  save  it,  makes 
tiiat  the  decisive  question,  and  in  order  to  save 
it  keeps  aloof  from  Christ — shall  lose  it,  or 
rather,  perhaps,  will  lose  it:  it  is  rather  a  pre- 
diction of  the  inevitable  result  than  a  denun- 


ciation of  doom. — But  whosoever  shall  lose 
his  life  for  my  sake  and  the  gospel's,  the 
same  shall  save  it.  In  Matthew,  "shall  find 
it."  Self-indulgence  as  against  the  claim  of 
Christ  will  be  latal;  self-sacrifice  for  the  sake 
of  Christ  and  the  gospel  is  the  way  to  life. — 
Throughout  this  pas.sage  (35-37)  one  word  is  used 
in  the  Greek  (psijche),  which  is  rendered  into 
English  now  by  life  and  now  by  soul.  The 
attempt  has  often  been  made,  as  in  thcKevision, 
to  translate  it  throughout  the  i)assage  by  one 
word,  but  with  no  very  satisfactory  result. 
Neither  word  cxi>resses  the  entire  idea,  while 
"life"  and  "soul"  do,  at  least  approximately, 
represent  the  two  as2)ects  of  the  life  of  man  that 
are  suggested  by  the  word  j>ji^c7ie.  That  word  is 
used  here,  not  in  two  senses,  but  in  two  aspects 
or  applications,  which  the  hearers,  familiar  with 
such  sententious  utterances,  would  well  enough 
understand.  As  descriptive  of  human  nature, 
"  spirit  is  life  as  coming  from  God ;  soul  is  life 
as  constituted  in  man.  Conseciuently,  when  the 
individual  life  is  to  be  made  emphatic,  '  soul '  is 
used"  (Laidlaw,  The  Bible  Doctrine  of  Man,  p. 
G9).  To  the  same  effect  is  the  definition  of 
psijche  in  Grimm's  New  Te.stanwnt  Lexicon  :  "As 
the  sting  of  Christ's  gnomic  sayings,  intended 
to  be  left  in  the  minds  of  the  hearers — to  find, 
to  save,  to  lose  one's  psi/c/u',  etc. — jisi/che  denotes 
in  one  member  of  the  antithesis  the  life  which 
is  lived  on  the  earth,  and  in  the  other  the  happy 
life  which  is  to  be  spent  in  the  eternal  kingdom 
of  God."  Under  Laidlaw's  definition,  which 
seems  sufti(;ient,  the  word  psi/chc  can  plainly 
have  two  asj)ects,  a  higher  and  a  lower,  which 
are  fairly  represented  by  "life"  and  "soul"  in 
the  present  passage.  Life,  as  constituted  in 
man,  is  present  to  his  consciousness  in  its 
earthly  form  as  human  life;  but  it  has  its 
higher  and  more  serious  and  enduring  inter- 
ests, which  are  called,  by  way  of  distinction, 
the  interests  of  his  soul,  and  his  constituted 
life,  with  reference  to  them,  is  called  his  soul. 
In  this  pas-sage  the  word  is  used  in  sliifling  ap- 
plication :  "  AVhoever  desires  to  save  his  life" — 
in  the  view  of  it  that  most  quickly  appeals  to 
men,  as  an  earthly  life — and,  so  desiring,  stands 
aloof  from  Christ,  "  will  lose  it,"  as  to  its  highei 
and  abiding  interests  ;  "but  whoever  shall  lose 
it" — /.  e.  whoever  does  lose  it.  as  a  matter  of 
fact — in  the  lower  sense,  "  for  my  sake  and  the 
gospel's,  shall  save  it"  in  the  higher  sense. 


124 


MARK. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


36  For  what  shall  it  profit  a  man,  if  he  shall  gain  the 
whole  world,  and  lose  his  own  soul? 

37  Or  what  shall  a  man  give  in  exchange  for  his  soul  ? 

38  Whosoever"  therefore  shall  be  ashamed  of  nie,  and 
of  my  words,  in  this  adulterous  and  sinful  generation, 
of  him  also  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  ashamed,  when  he 
Cometh  in  the  glory  of  his  Jb  ather,  with  the  holy  angels. 


36  it.    For  what  doth  it  profit  a  man,  to  gain  the  whole 

37  world,  and  forfeit  his  life?     For  what  should  a  man 
38 give  in  exchange  for  his  life?    For  whosoever  shall 

be  ashamed  of  me  and  of  my  words  in  this  adulterous 
and  sinful  generation,  the  .Son  of  man  also  shall  be 
ashamed  of  him,  when  he  cometh  in  the  glory  of  his 


iLuke  12  :  9;  2  Tim.  1  :  f 


36.  Following  the  text  of  the  revisers,  and 
preserving  the  noun  of  twofold  application,  we 
may  translate,  for  the  purpose  of  illustration, 
"  For  what  doth  it  profit  a  man  to  gain  the 
whole  world,  and  to  forfeit  his  jjsycM,  life,  or 
soul?"  The  verb  profit  is  in  the  present  tense, 
not  the  future ;  the  question  is  general,  relating 
to  the  present  time,  as  well  as  to  the  future  life. 
What  profit  is  there  in  such  a  transaction  ?  The 
last  verb  is  not  the  same  as  the  one  that  is  trans- 
lated "lose"  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  ought 
to  have  a  different  word  in  the  translation. 
Luke  brings  in  both  verbs  in  a  very  strong 
combination;  literally,  "To  gain  the  whole 
world,  but  to  lose  or  forfeit  himself."  As  for 
psychS  here,  either  meaning  seems  to  be  allow- 
ed to  it.  The  remark  is  transparently  true  in 
the  lower  and  ordinary  aspect:  to  gain  the 
whole  world  is  of  no  profit  to  a  man  who  loses 
his  life  in  doing  it.  How  much  more  pro- 
foundly must  it  be  true  of  life  in  its  higher 
aspect,  where  loss  means  so  much  more!  If 
life  is  regarded  in  its  relation  to  God  and  eter- 
nity, then  what  can  be  the  profit  if  one  gains 
the  world,  but  forfeits,  lets  go,  his  soul?  The 
value  of  man  to  himself  is  here  set  above  all 
other  values  in  the  world. 

37.  This  high  estimate  of  the  psyche  is  now 
confirmed  by  the  fact  that  no  other  possession 
can  buy  it  back  if  once  lost.  The  connective 
word  is  "  For,"  not  Or,  in  the  best  manuscripts ; 
and  the  connected  sense  of  the  two  verses  is, 
"What  doth  it  profit  a  man  to  gain  the  whole 
world  and  lose  his  soul?  For  what  is  there 
that  he  can  give,  out  of  all  his  possessions,  as  a 
price  with  which  to  buy  back  his  soul  when 
once  he  has  lost  it?"  If  he  has  bartered  it 
away,  there  is  nothing  to  redeem  it  with :  lost 
is  lost.  This  may  have  been  a  i)roverbial  say- 
ing commonly  applied  to  the  physical  life,  with 
reference  to  which  it  is,  of  course,  absolutely 
true :  lost  is  lost.  But  how  much  more  pro- 
foundly is  it  true  of  the  soul  in  its  higher  in- 
terests! Once  lost,  with  what  possession  can  it 
be  regained?  Barter  away  the  true  life  of  the 
soul  for  temporary  good,  and  it  is  gone,  as 
many  a  man  has  found  to  his  sorrow,  and  all 
that  has  been  accepted  instead  of  it  is  power- 
less to  bring  it  back. 


38.  The  general  statement  of  the  possibility 
of  losing  one's  self  now  receives  its  definite 
illustration,  in  connection  with  what  was  said 
at  first  of  boldly  following  Jesus.  The  hearers 
are  told  how  one  of  them  may  lose  his  soul, 
or,  in  Luke's  phrase,  "  lose  or  forfeit  himself." 
The  address  was  directly  to  our  Lord's  contem- 
poraries in  that  generation,  the  men  who  had 
had  the  opportunity  to  know  him ;  and  to 
them  it  was  a  terribly  searching  appeal.  Who- 
soever therefore  shall  be  ashamed  of 
me,  and  of  my  words.  This  would  be  the 
act  of  self-forfeiture  and  self-loss,  the  shame 
that  would  keep  them  away  from  him ;  and 
the  temptation  to  it  was  on  every  side. — They 
lived  in  the  midst  of  an  adulterous  and  sin- 
ful generation,  Literallj-,  "in  this  gener- 
ation, the  adulteress  and  sinner;"  adulterous 
in  the  sense  of  Jer.  3  :  20;  31  :  32;  Ezek.  16  : 
31,  32 ;  Matt.  16  :  4.  The  union  between  Je- 
hovah and  Israel  was  symbolized,  in  the 
prophets,  by  marriage,  and  the  unfaithfulness 
of  Israel  by  the  conduct  of  an  adulterous  wife. 
Now  Jesus  charges  his  own  generation  with 
such  adultery :  it  is  false  to  God,  and  stands 
forth  "  an  adulteress  and  a  sinner."  Jesus  was 
condemned  for  having  to  do  with  adulterous 
and  sinful  persons,  but  the  great  adulteress 
and  sinner  was  the  generation  that  condemn- 
ed him.  Yet  even  in  the  midst  of  such  a  gen- 
eration his  follower  miist  not  blush  to  come 
after  him  bearing  his  cross.  Indeed,  the  great 
need  of  the  whole  generation  was  to  be  deliv- 
ered from  the  wrong-heartedness  by  virtue  of 
which  it  would  be  ashamed  of  such  a  Christ 
as  he. — Notice  the  expression,  ashamed  of 
me,  and  of  my  words.  Compare  for  my 
sake  and  the  gospel's,  in  verse  35.  In 
both,  he  associates  his  truth  and  himself;  he 
does  not  wish  any  one  to  lose  his  life  for  his 
sake  apart  from  the  gospel,  or  for  the  gospel's 
sake  apart  from  him.  Just  so  did  his  person 
and  his  words  stand  together  for  the  men  of 
that  generation,  to  awaken  either  reverence 
and  love  or  shame.  His  words,  in  such  a 
connection,  are  especially  the  words  that  set 
forth  the  nature  of  his  kingdom ;  for  of  these 
especially  was  there  danger  that  men  would  be 
ashamed.     Observe  here  that  it  was  just  such 


I 


Ch.  VIII.] 


MARK. 


125 


9:  1  And  he  said  unto  them,  Verily"  I  say  unto  you, 
That  there  he  some  of  llieni  tliat  stand  here,  wiiich 
shall  not'  taste  of  death,  till  they  have  seen  the  king- 
dom of  Uod  come  with  power. 


:1  Father  with  the  holy  angels.  And  he  said  unto  them, 
Verily  1  say  unto  you,  There  are  some  here  of  them 
that  stand  by,  who  shall  in  no  wi.se  taste  of  death,  till 
they  see  the  kingdom  of  God  come  with  power. 


a  Matt.  16  :  i»  ;  Luke  9  :  -.17 6  Jobn  8 :  52  ;  Heb.  2  : 9. 


shame  in  Peter  (verse  32)  that  called  out  tliese 
words.  Whoever  is  ashamed,  on  him  sliall 
tiie  loss  of  him.self  fall;  for  "the  Son  of  man 
also  shall  be  ashamed  of  him  "  (see  Revision), 
and  this  is  loss  of  one's  self.  The  life,  soul, 
self,  of  which  he  is  ashamed,  is  lost.  Illus- 
trate by  tiie  parable  of  the  Talents  (Matt.  25:  i4-:!0). 
—When  he  comcth  in  the  glory  of  his 
Father,  with  the  holy  angels.  Luke, 
"  When  lie  eometh  in  his  glory  and  (the  glory) 
of  his  Father  and  of  the  holy  angels ;"  Mat- 
thew, "  For  the  Son  of  man  shall  come,  in  the 
glory  of  his  Father  with  his  angels,  and  tlien 
will  he  give  to  each  according  to  his  work." 
The  present  humiliation  of  the  Son  of  man 
was  not  always  to  continue;  by  and  by  the 
glory  of  (lod  and  heaven  would  be  upon  him, 
and  the  dilTerence  between  cross-bearing  for 
his  sake  and  the  gospel's  and  being  ashamed 
of  him  and  of  his  words  would  be  manifested 
in  his  judgment. 

Ch.  9  :  1.  Probably  the  sei>arati()n  of  this 
verse  from  its  context  in  Mark  alone  is  due  to 
the  fact  tiiat  only  in  ^lark  is  it  introduced  by 
the  words  And  he  said  unto  them.  But 
that  is  no  sufticient  reason  for  the  sci)aration, 
the  words  being  merely  one  of  Mark's  em- 
phatic calls  to  special  attention.  This  verse  is 
in  sense  inseparable  from  the  preceding,  as  one 
who  reads  it  ii)  Matthew  or  Luke  will  see  at 
once.  This  closing  word  wa.s  intended  for  sol- 
emn warning  and  encouragement  to  the  men 
of  that  generation  who  had  just  been  put  to 
the  test  by  the  words  already  spoken  ;  as  if  he 
had  said,  "You  will  not  have  long  to  wait. 
The  Son  of  man  will  soon  be  glorified,  and  his 
kingdom  and  glory  will  be  made  manifest  even 
among  you  before  death  has  come  to  all  of 
you."  The  verse  is  i>erfectly  plain  in  itself, 
though  it  may  be  difficult  to  fit  its  teaching 
into  our  scheme  of  tiiought  on  the  subjet^t  of 
which  it  treats.  Such  difticulty  is  no  reason, 
however,  for  seeking  to  evade  or  conceal  the 
real  sense  of  a  passage,  and  an  interpreter  has 
<nily  to  tleal  with  what  his  passage  contains. 
Hence  the  only  task  at  present  is  to  state  the 
plain  sense  of  these  words. — The  simplest  form 
of  the  saying  is  in  Luke :  "  I  say  unto  you  in 
truth,  There  arc  some  of  those  that  stand  here 
who  will  not  ta,stc  of  death  till  they  shall  have 
seen  the  kingdom  of  God."     Matthew,  who  has 


ju.st  said,  "  The  Son  of  man  shall  come,"  now 
says,  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  There  are  some 
of  those  that  stand  here  who  will  not  taste  of 
death  till  they  shall  have  seen  the  Son  of  man 
coming  in  his  kingdom."  In  Mark  it  is,  Ver- 
ily I  say  unto  you,  That  there  be  some 
of  them  that  stand  here,  which  shall  not 
taste  of  death,  till  they  have  seen  the 
kingdom  of  God  (already)  come  with 
power.  The  word  is  a  perfect  jiarticijjle, 
"having  come"  or  "already  come."  Thus 
the  three  testimonies  as  to  what  it  is  that 
some  of  them  that  stand  here  shall  see 
are:  Luke,  "the  kingdom  of  God;"  Matthew, 
"the  Son  of  man  coming  in  his  kingdom;" 
Mark,  "  the  kingdom  of  God  already  come." 
Such  language  can  mean  only  that  some  who 
were  then  present  should  live  until  after  the 
Son  of  man  had  come  in  his  glory  and  the 
kingdom  of  God  had  come  in  its  characteristic 
power,  and  then  should  taste  of  death. 
What  events  were  thus  predicted?  Some,  led 
by  the  connection  of  this  verse  with  the  ninth 
chapter,  have  found  a  fulfilment  in  the  Trans- 
figuration ;  but  the  objections  seem  fatal  that 
the  language  is  too  far-reaching  to  suit  an  event 
that  three  persons  and  no  others  witnessed  after 
six  days,  and  that  neither  Christ  nor  the  king- 
dom of  God  "came"  at  the  Transfiguration. 
No  event  that  fulfils  the  description  occurred 
within  the  lifetime  of  any  who  were  present, 
except  that  setting  up  of  the  kingdom  which 
was  accomjilished  by  the  work  of  the  Holy 
S[>irit  and  the  abolition  of  the  Old  Dispensa- 
tion. If  the  prediction  ditl  not  mean  this,  it 
was  not  fulfilled.  That  establishment  of  the 
New  Dispensation  in  place  of  the  Old  was  wit- 
nessed in  part  by  all  that  generation,  in  full  by 
a  few  ;  it  began  at  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and 
culminated  forty  years  later.  (See  notes  on 
chap.  13  :  24-27,  where  this  series  of  events  is 
called  a  coming  of  the  Son  of  man.)  It  was  in 
this  coming  of  his  kingdom  that  Christ  said  he 
should  be  ashamed  of  the  man  in  that  genera- 
tion who  had  been  a-shamed  of  him — i.  e.,  the 
principles  of  the  kingdom  would  condemn  and 
reject  the  man ;  there  was  no  place  for  such  a 
man  in  such  a  kingdom  ;  the  repulsion  between 
Christ  and  his  shame  at  Christ  was  mutual  and 
unalterable ;  so  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
with  its  rich  and  eternal  blessedness,  was  not 


126 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IX. 


CHAPTER    IX. 


AND"  after  six  days  Jesus  taketh  inth  him  Peter,  and 
James,  and  John,  and  leadeth  them  up  into  an  hijfh 
mountain  apart  by  themselves :  and  he  was  transtigured 
before  them. 

3  And  his  raiment  became  shining,  exceeding  wliite'' 
as  snow;  so  as  no  fuller  on  earth  can  white  them. 


2  And  after  six  days  Jesus  taketh  with  him  Peter, 
and  .lames,  and  John,  and  bringeth  them  up  into  a 
high  mountain  apart  by  themselves:   and  he  was 

3  transtigured  before  tliem:  and  his  garments  became 
glistering,  exceeding  white  ;  so  as  no  fuller  on  earth 


I  Matt.  17  :  1,  etc.,-  Luke  9  :  28,  etc h  Dan.  7:9;  Matt.  28:3. 


for  liim.  Tlie  principle  of  his  rejection  is  the 
same  as  that  of  tlie  rejection  in  tlie  final 
judgment. 


2-13.  THE  TRANSFIGURATION  OF  JE- 
SUS, AND  THE  CONVERSATION  WHICH 
IT  SUGGESTED.  Parallels,  Matt.  17  :  1-13 ; 
Luke  9  :  28-3G. — Lulce  omits  the  subsequent 
conversation,  but  rei^orts  the  event  itself  rather 
more  fully  than  INIatthew  and  jMark,  and  in 
language  somewhat  divergent  from  theirs. 
They  use  largely  the  same  forms  of  expres- 
sion, but  iiot  in  such  maniier  as  to  cast  the 
slightest  doubt  on  the  independence  of  their 
reports. 

2,3.  After  six  days.  So  also  Matthew; 
Luke,  "  after  these  sayings,  about  eight  days," 
which  some  take  as  an  inclusive  reckoning,  par- 
allel with  that  by  which  the  time  of  our  Lord's 
stay  in  the  grave  is  mentioned  as  three  days ; 
but  the  word  "about"  renders  the  marking  of 
time  indefinite,  like  our  "  About  a  week."  These 
six  days  were  probably  spent  in  the  same  north- 
ern region,  not  far  from  Cicsarea  Philippi.  The 
traditional  scene  of  the  Transfiguration  is  on 
Mount  Tabor,  a  solitary  rounded  hill  in  the 
midst  of  Galilee,  a  few  miles  nearly  south  from 
Capernaum.  On  this  site  three  churches  and  a 
monastery  were  erected  in  honor  of  the  event 
before  the  end  of  the  sixth  century.  Thus  in 
Montgomery's  hymn  of  The  Three  Mountains, 
Sinai,  Tabor,  and  Calvary : 

"When  in  ecstasy  sublime 
Tabor's  glorious  steep  I  climb. 
At  the  too-transporting  light 
Darkness  rushes  on  my  sight." 

But  Tabor  is  now  known  to  have  been  inhabited 
in  those  days  and  crowned  by  a  fortress,  which 
had  been  strengthened  less  than  thirty  years  be- 
fore this  time— a  very  good  illustration  of  the 
insufficient  grounds  upon  which  tradition  has 
often  decided  upon  sites  for  sacred  events.  The 
true  .scene  of  the  Transfiguration  was  probably 
somewhere  on  the  slopes  of  Hermon,  the  great 
mountain  of  the  north,  which  rises  as  a  crown 
above  the  whole  land  of  Palestine.  A  walk  of 
from  ten  to  twenty  miles  beyond  Cicsarea  Phil- 
ippi would  bring  Jesus  and  his  company  into 


the  high  solitudes  of  the  mountain. — Here,  as 
in  the  raising  of  Jairus's  daughter,  Peter,  and 
James,  and  John  are  the  special  three  select- 
ed to  be  the  Master's  comjianions.  From  their 
conduct  at  this  time  we  can  see  how  little  true 
companionship  for  his  higher  thoughts  and 
powers  he  found  even  in  the  best  of  those  who 
were  about  him.  Yet  i)lainly  he  prized  what 
he  had. — Luke  alone  tells  us  that  he  went  up 
into  the  mountain  to  pray,  and  that  it  was 
while  he  was  engaged  in  prayer  that  the  great 
change  came  upon  him.  It  is  from  Luke's  lan- 
guage that  we  infer,  also,  that  it  was  evening 
when  they  ascended  the  mountain.  Doubtless 
he  went,  as  at  Luke  G  :  12,  to  spend  the  night 
in  prayer.  The  other  apostles  were  spending 
the  night  liclow.— And  he  was  transfigured 
before  them.  Mattliew  uses  the  same  word, 
which  is  found  also  in  2  Cor.  3  :  18,  "  changed 
into  the  same  image,"  and  in  Rom.  12  :  2,  "be 
ye  transformed  by  the  renewing  of  your  mind." 
Luke  says  simply  that  "  the  fashion  "  or  appear- 
ance "of  his  countenance"  (literally)  "became 
different,"  egeneto  heteron.  Thus  there  is  noth- 
ing highly  descriptive  in  either  of  the  words 
that  tell  us  what  occurred ;  yet  it  is  by  this 
scene  that  the  word  "transfigure"  has  become, 
distinguished  from  "  transform,"  and  come  to 
tell  of  an  ideal  form  or  appearance  in  which 
that  which  is  outward  represents  and  expresses 
a  true  glory  that  dwells  within.  As  for  the  out- 
ward appearance,  the  change  extended  beyond 
his  face  and  what  was  strictly  of  himself,  even 
to  his  clothing,  which  glowed,  to  the  disciples' 
eyes,  with  a  dazzling  light.  — ^Mark  describes 
only  his  raiment.  His  raiment  became 
shining,  exceeding  Avhite  (as  snow  should 
probably  be  omitted);  so  as  no  fuller  on 
earth  can  Avhite  them.  The  whole  descrip- 
tion is  peculiar  to  Mark,  and  its  naturalness 
and  nnlvete  strongly  commend  it  as  a  geimine 
and  original  reminiscence.  This  is  a  beholder's 
graphic  way  of  setting  forth  the  su)>erhuman 
brightness  that  streamed  from  the  whole  per- 
son of  Jesus.  Luke's  language  is  similar,  but 
briefer:  literally,  "his  clothing  became  white, 
forth-shining" — not  the  same  word  as  shin- 
ing, or  "glistering,"  in  Mark.  But  this  is  de- 
scription attempted  on  the  earthly  plane ;  Mat- 


Ch.  IX.] 


MARK. 


127 


4  And  there  appeared  unto  them  Elias,  with  Moses; 
and  I  hey  were  talking  with  Jesus. 

.")  And  reter  answered  and  said  to  Jesus,  Master,  it 
is  good  for  us  to  be  here ;"  and  let  us  make  three  tab- 
ernacles: one  for  thee,  and  one  for  Moses,  and  one  for 
Elias. 

6  l'"or  he  wist*  not  what  to  say;  for  they  were  sore 
afraid. 


4  can  whiten  them.  And  there  appeared  unto  them 
Elijah  with  Mo.ses :  and  they  were  talking  with  Jesus. 

5  And  I'eter  answereth  and  saith  to  Jesus,  Habbi,  it  is 
good  for  us  to  be  here:  and  let  us  make  three  'tab- 
ernacles; one  for  thee,  and  one  for  Moses,  and  one 

6  for  Elijah.    For  he  Itnew  not  what  to  answer;  for 


IPs.  63:2;  84  :  10.... 6  Dan.  10:15;  Rev.  1:17.- 


tliew's  imagery  is  nobler :  "  his  face  did  siiine  as 
the  sun,  and  his  raiment  was  white  a-s  the  light." 
What  was  this?  the  glory  of  the  rising  sun 
reflected  from  the  snows  of  Hermon?  (So — 
almost — PhllochrlstiiK,  p.  201.)  No;  the  serious- 
ness of  this  whole  record  condemns  such  an 
explanation.  Unless  it  is  all  a  myth — which 
we  can  by  no  means  believe — this  was  a  real 
irradiation  of  his  body,  such  an  irradiation  as 
to  justify  that  derived  sense  of  the  wiird  trans- 
figured. It  was  a  genuine  shining  forth 
of  the  nature  of  Clirist ;  not  so  much  an 
effort  of  his  as  a  manifestation  of  himself,  a 
revealing  of  the  divine  nature  through  the 
human.  No  other  such  event  is  recorded  of 
him,  though  some  have  thought  they  found 
one  in  the  walking  on  the  sea  (Tayler  Lewis, 
The  Divine  Human  in  the  Scriptures).  No 
doubt  a  nature  that  so  shone  forth  once 
could  shine  forth  again,  but  tlie  Transfigura- 
tion stands  in  solitarj-  grandeur  in  the  record. 
Its  purpose  was  to  reveal  the  Christ  to  chosen 
ones  among  his  disciples  as  he  had  never 
been  revealed  to  them  before  (see  note  below  )i 
and  so  to  leave  for  us  a  view  of  his  glory. 
Study  this  glory  in  comparison  with  that  of 
the  Mount  of  Beatitudes.  As  to  the  inward 
n;uiire  of  this  wonder,  of  course  we  stand 
wondering,  a.s  they  did.  We  know  so  little 
either  of  CJod  or  of  man  that  we  cannot  call 
it  strange  if  the  manifestations  of  the  God- 
man  baiHe  us.  It  is  a  striking  fact  that  in  the 
commentaries  and  the  "Lives"  of  Christ  the 
treatment  of  this  event  is  always  among  the 
least  satisfactory  passages.  Probably  it  will 
always  be  so,  for  nowhere  are  we  led  farther 
into  an  unknown  region. 

4.  There  appeared  unto  them  (the  tiiree 
disciple.'^)  Elias,  with  Most's.  In  .Matthew 
and  Luke,  "  Moses  and  Elijah  "—Elijah,  one 
of  the  greatest  of  the  prophets,  and  the 
one  whose  spirit  was  to  be  reproduced  in  the 
earliest  work  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  yet 
one  wliose  sjiirit  seems  to  be  half  condemned 
by  Jesus  as  an  inferior  sjiirit,  which  in  the  new 
kingdom  is  to  besurpa.s.sed  (T.uke9:5i-56). — Elias, 
with  .Moses.  Moses,  the  mediator  of  the  old 
covenant  (Gai.  3:i9),  by  whom  was  given  the 
law  whose  meaning  Jesus  had  now  come  to 


fulfil  or  to  complete  (Mutt.  5 :  n).  Both  "  the  law 
and  the  prophets"  Christ  was  thus  to  fulfil; 
and  his  reference  to  the  spirit  of  Elijah  illus- 
trates one  part  of  his  work,  while  abundant 
references  to  tlie  law  of  Moses  illustrate  the 
other.     All  prophets  and  righteous  men   had 

an    interest    in    his  work  (Matt.  13  :  17;  John  8:56;  HeU. 

u  :  13),  but  Moses  certainly,  and  perhaps  Elijah, 
beyond  the  rest.  Luke  adds  that  they  appeared 
"in  glorj',"  corresponding  to  the  outshining 
glory  of  Jesus,  and  that  they  spoke  of  "  his 
decease  "  (literally,  his  departure,  or  e.xodus). 
"  which  he  should  accomplish  at  Jerusalem." 
Note  the  same  word  (exodon,  "exodus")  used 
by  Peter  in  close  connection  with  his  allusion 
to  this  scene  (2  Pet.  1 :  is).  One  cannot  help 
wondering  whether  the  three  disciples  caught 
the  word  "  exodus  "  in  the  fragment  that  they 
heard  of  conversation  between  Jesus  and  Moses. 
Or  were  the  two  visitants  speaking  of  liis  exit 
from  life  to  compare  it,  as  to  manner,  with  their 
own?  Had  they  anything  to  tell  him  of  his 
own  approaching  death,  or  was  he  telling  them? 
Matthew  and  Mark  .say  merely  that  they  were 
talking  with  Jesus.  Judging  as  well  as  we 
can  from  his  apparent  motive  in  going  to  the 
mountain,  we  must  say  that  this  mu.st  have 
been  to  him  an  encouraging  and  lielpful  con- 
versation ;  but  more  we  cannot  say. 

5,  6.  From  Luke  we  learn  that  the  three  dis- 
ciples did  not  witness  the  whole  scene :  while 
their  ]Ma.stcr  prayed  they  slept,  and  it  was  only 
after  the  two  visitants  had  come  and  the  con- 
versation had  begun  that  they  became  aware  of 
wliat  was  pa.ssing.  Awaking,  "  they  saw  liis 
glory  and  the  two  men  tliat  stooil  with  him." 
From  Luke  also  we  learn  to  place  the  proposal 
of  Peter  at  the  moment  wlien  he  saw  that  Moses 
and  Elijah  were  withdrawing.  Peter's  word  of 
address  is  "Lord"  in  Matthew;  "Master"  in 
Luke;  "Rabbi,"  in  the  original,  in  Mark.  His 
words,  it  is  good  for  us  to  be  here,  are 
identical  in  all  the  rejinrts. — Let  us  make 
three  tabernacles.  Tents  or  booths  woven 
of  the  braiulics  of  trees.  In  such  booths  the 
children  of  Israel  were  required  to  dwell  during 
the  feast  of  tabernacles;  but  doubtle.>is  a  higher 
a-ssociation  of  ideas  brought  the  word  to  Peter's 
mind.    Perhaps  lie  vaguely  remembered  how 


128 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IX. 


7  And  there  was  a  cloud  that  overshadowed  them : 
and  a  voice  came  out  of  the  cloud,  saying,  This"  is  my 
beloved  Son  ;  hear''  him. 

S  And  suddenly,  when  they  had  looked  round  about, 
they  saw  no  man  any  more,  save  Jesus  only  with  them- 
selves. 


7  they  became  sore  afraid.  And  there  came  a  cloud 
overshadowing  them :  and  there  came  a  voice  out 
of  the  cloud,  This  is  my  beloved  Son  :  hear  ye  him. 

8  And  suddenly  looking  round  about,  they  saw  no  one 
any  more,  save  Jesus  only  with  themselves. 


a  Ps.  2:  7;  Matt.  3  :  17;  2  Pet.  1  :  17....6  Deut.  18:  15. 


God  talked  with  Moses  at  the  tabernacle  soon 
after  the  Exodus.  At  any  rate,  he  wished  to 
detain  the  glorious  visitants,  and  was  hurriedly 
planning  for  their  entertainment.  This  seemed 
to  him  like  a  glimpse  of  real  glory,  like  glory 
already  reached.  After  the  stern  predictions  of 
the  cross  it  may  easily  have  seemed  like  the 
bright  end,  unexpectedly  reached  without  pass- 
ing through  the  terrible  way.  If  now  they 
could  only  stay  there!  At  least  it  was  worth 
an  effort,  and  he  would  propose  it.  Notice  that 
there  was  no  inclusion  of  the  three  disciples  in 
the  plan  :  three  tabernacles,  not  six.— Peter's 
proposal  receives  no  comment  in  Matthew,  but 
it  is  half  apologized  for  by  Luke  in  his  "  not 
knowing  what  he  said" — i.e.  not  knowing 
whether  he  was  saying  the  right  thing  or  not — 
and  l)y  ^Slark  when  he  says.  For  he  wist  not 
what  to  say  ;  for  they  (all  of  them)  were 
sore  afraid.  It  was  a  childish  ])roposal,  and 
one  that  would  scarcely  have  been  preserved  in 
connection  with  a  scene  so  glorious,  except  in 
a  narrative  of  exquisite  simplicity  and  truth- 
fulness; yet  in  spirit  it  is  not  to  be  condemned : 
he  was  not  wrong  in  heart ;  and  it  is  not  wrong 
to  wish  to  remain  "on  the  mount"  as  long  as 
possible.  As  for  his  recognition  of  the  two  glo- 
rious ones,  did  he  derive  it  from  something  that 
he  lieard  or  from  something  in  their  appear- 
ance? More  likely  it  was  instinctive  or  intui- 
tive, obtained  he  knew  not  how.  Doubtless  all 
the  three  shared  it,  but  we  cannot  say  whether 
his  proposal  was  theirs. 

7.  No  answer  to  Peter's  proposition  ;  his  offer 
could  not  be  accepted,  and  ho  would  one  day 
know  why.  This  was  not  glory  for  the  Mes- 
siah ;  this  was  only  help  to  him  in  pressing  on 
to  glory  by  the  only  way,  the  way  of  the  cross. 
This  was  another  suggestion  from  Peter  that  he 
should  not  press  on  to  death,  but  should  accept 
another  glory  than  that  to  which  his  Father 
called  him.  He  could  not  turn  aside  on  his 
way  to  death  to  be  adored  on  Mount  Hermon 
in  company  with  Moses  and  Elijah.  If  he  had, 
his  glory  would  have  departed.  No  answer; 
but  "  while  he  yet  was  speaking"  (Matthew  and 
Luke)  a  cloud  (Matthew,  "a  bright  cloud") 
overshadowed  them.  Not  merely  Jesus, 
Moses,  and  Elijah,  for  the  disciples  entered  the 
cloud,  and  feared  as  they  entered  (Luke).     The 


cloud  would  remind  them  of  the  pillar  of  cloud 
and  tire  at  the  Exodus  (ex.  13:21),  of  the  cloud 
that  filled  the  temple  of  Solomon  at  the  ded- 
ication (1  Kings  8: 10),  whicli  had  also  rested  on 
the  tabernacle  (e.\.  40:3i),  and  perhaps  of  the 
"smoke"  that  filled  the  temple  in  Isaiah's 
vision  of  the  divine  glory  (isa.  6:4).  All  these 
had  been  visible  signs  of  Jehovah's  presence; 
and  in  later  Jewish  times  the  cloud  was  ex- 
pressly recognized  as  the  Shechinah,  the  dwell- 
ing of  the  glory  of  God.  The  sweeping  of  a 
bright  cloud  over  them  at  such  a  moment 
would  certainly  bring  all  this  to  mind,  in  vague 
impressions  if  not  in  distinct  thoitght;  and, 
though  there  was  little  room  for  reflection,  the 
awe  of  God  would  be  upon  the  three  disciples. 
When  a  voice  came  out  of  the  cloud,  they 
would  receive  it  as  the  voice  of  God. 

The  voice  said,  This  is  my  beloved  Son: 
hear  him.  So  Mark  ;  Matthew  adds,  as  at  the 
baptism,  "  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased  ;"  Luke, 
according  to  Tischendorf 's  reading,  "  This  is  my 
elect  Son."  All  agree  in  the  final  hear  him. 
The  utterance  resembles  the  one  at  the  baptism, 
yet  differs  from  it.  (See  note  on  chap.  1  :  IL) 
That  voice  was  addressed  to  Jesus  himself,  to 
identify  liini  in  his  humanity  to  himself;  this 
was  addressed  to  his  disciples,  and  through  them 
to  all  to  whom  his  words  might  come.  This  was 
the  celestial  commendation  of  Christ  to  men. 

8.  Matthew  mentions  the  terror  of  the  dis- 
ciples at  the  voice,  and  tells  how  Jesus  "came 
to  them,"  apparently  from  the  place,  a  little  re- 
moved, where  they  had  seen  him,  and  touched 
them,  with  a  reassuring  word.  Of  the  words 
suddenly,  when  they  had  looked  round, 
Farrar  says,  most  justly,  "  One  of  the  many  in- 
imitably graphic  touches  of  truthfulness  and 
simplicity  —  touches  never  yet  found  in  any 
myth  since  the  world  began — with  which  in  all 
three  evangelists  this  narrative  abounds"  (Life 
of  Chrigf,  2.  29).  The  voice  was  still  and  the 
vision  was  ended,  and  they  and  their  blaster 
were  alone  again.  —  There  is  nothing  in  this 
verse  to  furnish  Jesus  only  to  preachers  as  a 
legitimate  text  for  doctrinal  or  hortatory  use. 

Mysterious  as  the  Transfiguration  is,  we  are 

able  to  understand  something  of  its  significance, 

both  for  Jesus  and  for  his  disciples.   We  can  see 

j  that  Jesus  ascended  the  mountain  for  prayer,  in 


Ch.  IX.] 


MARK. 


129 


9  And  as  they  came  down  from  the  mountain,  he 
charj^ed  them  that  they  shouUl  ti'll  no  man  wliat 
tilings  they  had  seen,  till  the  .Son  of  man  were  risen 
from  the  dead. 

10  And  .ney  kept  that  saying  with  '.nemselves,  ques- 
tioning one  with  another  what  tUe  rising  from  the 
dead  should  mean." 

11  H  .\nd  they  asked  him, saying,  Why  say  the  scribes 
that  Ellas*  must  tirst  come? 


9  And  as  they  were  coming  down  from  the  moun- 
tain, he  charged  them  that  they  should  tell  no  man 
what  things  they  had  seen,  save  when  the  ."^on  of 

10  man  should  have  ri.son  again  from  the  dead.  And 
taey  kept  the  sa"jng, '-uestioning  among  themselves 
what  the  rising  again  from  the  dead  should  mean. 

11  And  they  asked  hiui,  .saying,  'The  scribes  say  that 


a  Acts  17:18....i  Mai.  4:5.- 


-1  Or,  How  is  it  that  the  seribu  sag 


order  to  strengthen  his  soul  for  the  struggle 
toward  which  his  thoughts  liad  been  freshly 
turned.  He  was  seeking  for  strongtli  to  bear 
his  own  cross  even  to  the  end.  His  prayer  was 
heard  (as  at  Hel).  5  :  7),  and  in  response  came 
tliis  special  vi.sitation  from  the  heavenly  world. 
Sucli  ilea venly  aid  was  granted  him  at  tlie  great 
crises  of  liis  life,  as  after  tlie  temptation  in  the 
wilderness  (Matt.  4:  u)  and  in  llie  agony  of  the 
garden  (UikeWMS).  Conip.  Matt.  3:17;  John 
12  :  28.  Now  the  cross  was  drawing  nearer  to 
liis  soul,  and  now  came  the  great  conversa- 
tion with  Moses  and  Elijah  which  stands  in 
unique  grandeur  among  his  heavenly  inter- 
views. It  was  to  liiin  somewhat  like  the  refresh- 
ment that  Elijah  received  for  his  journey  from 
the  visit  of  an  angel  beneath  the  juniper  tree 
(1  Kiugs  19:5-31,  but  uiorc  like  the  blessing  that 
Moses  received  in  his  great  vision  of  God  at 
Mount  Sinai  (Ex.  33:12-34:9).  As  for  the  disci- 
ples, this  was  the  response  of  Heaven  to  the 
great  c(jnfession.  "  To  him  that  hath  shall  be 
given :"  they  had  discerned  the  Christ  in  his 
obscurity,  and  to  them  was  given  the  vision  of 
his  glory.  But  it  was  given  f  )r  a  jjiirposo,  and 
in  answer  to  a  need.  Tliey  had  been  told  that 
his  way  and  theirs  was  the  way  of  the  cross. 
In  that  dark  and  j)ainfiil  way  unbelief  might 
easily  a.ssail  them,  as  doubt  had  assailed  even 
John  the  Baptist  in  the  prison  (Luke  7: 19),  and 
they  might  .-isk  whether  they  had  not  f  )llowed 
cunningly-devised  fal)les  when  they  accepted 
him  as  the  Christ  of  CJod  and  the  chosen  of 
their  hearts.  In  this  shining  forth  of  his  glory 
there  was  conlirmation  for  their  tiiith,  congenial 
reward  for  their  confession,  fresh  witness  from 
heaven  to  him  whom  they  alone  on  earth  had 
recognized,  and.  if  their  sense  of  his  authority 
sliould  fail,  a  solemn  hear  him  uttered  from 
heaven  to  strengthen  their  loyalty.  Tlie  whole 
jxissage  in  Peter's  Second  Epistle  (1 : 1.1-19)  is  full 
of  allusions  to  the  event,  direct  and  indirect, 
and  all  in  the  spirit  of  this  interpretation.  Ev- 
idently the  Transfiguration  was  a  resting-place 
for  the  confidence  of  the  l)elievers  ;  certainly  it 
was  such  to  the  writer  of  that  Epistle.  Farrar 
remarks,  on  2  Pet.  1  :  10,  "  Many  have  resolved 
the  narrative  of  the  Transfiguration  into  a  mvth ; 
9 


it  is  remarkable  that  in  this  verse  St.  Peter  is 
expressly  repudiating  the  very  kind  of  myths 
{mut/ioi  .sesophLs-nienoi)  under  which  this  would 
be  classed"  {Life  of  Christ,  2.  30). 

9,  10.  A  Strict  Command  to  Conce.vl  this 
Matter  until  Ai^-tior  the  Kesukrection  of 
Jesus. — As  for  the  people  in  general,  represent- 
ed in  spirit  only  too  faithfully  by  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees  of  Dalmanutha  (chap.  8: 11),  this 
was  not  for  them.  This  wa.s  a  sign  from  heaven 
exactly  su(;li  as  the  Phari.sees  had  suj>i)oseii  tliey 
desired  to  see.  The  voice  from  heaven,  if  they 
had  heard  it,  would  precisely  have  satisfied  the 
terms  of  their  request,  though  it  would  not 
have  won  from  them  a  genuine  faith.  But  the 
shining  of  tho  inner  glory  and  the  hear  him 
from  heaven  were  not  for  the  adulterous  and 
sinful  generation ;  they  were  not  even  for  all 
the  a{)ostles  of  Christ.  The  three  were  bidden 
to  conceal  it  from  the  nine ;  for  this  is  the  evi- 
dent meaning  of  the  command.  The  nine  were 
not  ready  to  see  the  event  with  spiritual  profit, 
and  certainly  not  to  hear  of  it  at  second-hand  : 
they  would  have  been  perplexed,  pcrhai)s  un- 
believing, and  perhaps  jealous.  For  the  time 
this  was  a  strict  secret  for  the  elect  of  the  elect, 
a  special  trust.  But  with  what  joy  must  they 
have  revealed  it  after  the  rising  from  the  dead 
had  unsealed  their  lips! — The  mention  of  the 
rising  from  tlie  dead  still  iH'r])lexed  tlicm,  and 
they  began  questioning  one  Avith  another 
what  it  might  mean.  Such  is  the  most  ]>rob- 
able  grouping  of  the  words,  and  it  tells  of 
anxious  and  perjilexed  di.scussions,  in  wliich 
they  still  failed  to  obtain  any  clear  apprehen- 
sion of  the  truth. — Peter  is  undoui)tedly  the 
one  of  the  three  to  whom  we  owe  tlie  narrative 
as  it  stands  in  Mark,  and  Matthew's  version  is 
in  general  closely  similar.  The  fresh  narrative 
of  Luke,  ditt'ering  slightly,  may  represent  the 
report  of  one  of  the  other  witiH>,s.ses,  possibly 
that  of  James.  One  woidd  like  to  think  so, 
for  we  have  nothing  in  the  New  Testament 
from  the  brother  of  John  and  the  first  martyr 
of  the  apostles.  Yet  the  language  of  2  Peter 
proves  that  the  writer  was  familiar  with  the 
story  in  the  form  in  which  it  stands  in  Luke. 

11.  After  this  prohibition,  given  on. the  way 


130 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IX. 


12  And  he  answered  and  told  them,  Ellas  verily 
Cometh  first,  and  restoreth  all  things ;  and  how  it  is 
written"  of  the  Son  of  man,  that  he  must  sutler  many 
things,  and  be*  set  at  naught. 

18  But  I  say  unto  you,  That''  Ellas  is  indeed  come, 
and  they  have  done  unto  him  whatsoever  they  listed, 
as  it  is  written  of  him. 


12  Elijah  must  first  come.  And  he  said  unto  them, 
Elijah  indeed  cometh  first,  and  restoreth  all  things: 
and  how  is  it  written  of  the  Son  of  man,  that  he 
should  sutter  many  things  and  be  set  at  nought? 

13  But  I  say  unto  you,  that  Elijah  is  come,  and  they 
have  also  done  unto  him  whatsoever  they  listed, 
even  as  it  is  written  of  him. 


aPs.  22: 1,  etc.;  Isa.  53:3,  etc.;  Dan.  9  :  26  ;  Zech.  13:7 b  Ps.  74  :  22  ;  l.uke  23  :  1  ;  Phil.  2:7 c  Matt.  11  :  14  ;  Luke  1  :  17. 


down  from  the  mountain,  a  question  aro.se 
about  the  great  event.  Elijah  had  appeared, 
and  had  immediately  disappeared ;  he  had 
come  late,  after  the  Messiah  had  been  brought 
into  the  world,  and  had  vanished  without  do- 
ing or  attempting  any  work  in  connection  with 
his  kingdom.  What  should  they  think  ?  Ac- 
cording to  the  constant  teaching  of  the  scribes, 
Elijah  must  first  come.  This  teaching  was 
based  on  Scripture,  in  Mai.  4  :  5,  6,  but  the  dis- 
ciples alluded  to  the  doctrine  in  its  popular  form 
and  connections  as  the  more  familiar.  Had  not 
Elijali  come  last  instead  of  first,  and  even  then 
with  no  popular  effect? 

12,  13.  There  is  no  important  difference  of 
reading  here,  but  the  punctuation  is  not  uni- 
versally agreed  upon.  Probably  it  should  be, 
as  in  Tischendorf  and  Meyer,  "  Elijah  indeed 
cometh  first,  and  restoreth  all  things.  And 
how  is  it  written  concerning  the  Son  of  man? 
That  he  should  suffer  many  thing.s,  and  be  set 
at  naught.  But  I  say  unto  you  tliat  Elijah  also 
hath  come,  and  they  did  unto  him  whatsoever 
things  they  would,  as  it  hath  been  written  con- 
cerning him."  The  punctuation  of  the  revisers 
seems  less  satisfactory.  Here  it  is  affirmed  (1) 
that  the  scribes  were  right  in  saying  that  the 
mission  of  Elijah  must  precede  that  of  the 
Messiah.  He  verily  cometh  first.  The  use 
of  the  present  tense  is  the  indefinite  use,  as  in 
Matt.  2:4,  "where  the  Christ  is  born."  (2) 
That  the  work  of  Elijah  is  that  he  restoreth 
all  things — a  work  of  restoration.  The  lan- 
guage comes  from  the  Septuagint  of  Mai.  4  :  6, 
where  it  is  said  that  Elijah  "  shall  restore  the 
heart  of  father  to  son,  and  the  heart  of  man  to 
his  neiglilxjr."  The  Hebrew  is  similar  in  mean- 
ing, though  not  identical :  "  Shall  turn  the  heart 
of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  and  the  lieart  of 
the  children  to  tlie  fathers."  It  is  a  restoration 
of  piety  and  love  that  is  thus  assigned  to  Elijah 
as  his  work;  and  to  say  that  he  cometh  and 
restoreth  all  things  is  to  .say  that  he  shall 
make,  as  far  as  his  influence  extends,  tlie  res- 
toration tliat  is  predicted  of  him.  (8)  Tliat  Eli- 
jah has  already  come.  Elias  is  indeed—/,  e. 
Elijah  as  well  as  the  Messiah.  The  true  Elijah 
— forerunner,  restorer,  preparer  of  the  way  of 
the  Lord — has  come.      Matthew  says  that  the 


disciples  understood  him  to  be  speaking  of 
John  the  Baptist ;  and  of  course  we  cannot 
understand  him  of  any  other.  In  John  the 
Baptist,  therefore,  the  prediction  concerning 
Elijah  was  fulfilled.  (4)  That  it  has  been  writ- 
ten concerning  the  Son  of  man  that  he  shall  be 
a  despised  Messiah  and  a  sufferer ;  and  that  in 
this  prediction  it  is  included,  by  implication, 
that  his  forerunner  also  shall  be  despised  and 
rejected.  What  was  written  of  the  Christ  in  this 
respect  was  written  of  the  messenger  who  was 
sent  before  him.  "  It  is  enough  for  the  disciple 
that  he  be  as  his  Master."  (5)  That  the  predic- 
tion has  been  fulfilled  in  the  case  of  John  :  they 
"  knew  him  not "  as  the  true  Elijali,  and  treated 
him  as  they  would.  In  Matthew  it  is  added, 
"  Thus  also  shall  the  Son  of  man  suffer  at  their 
hands." — Thus  Jesus  gave  to  the  three  disciples 
a  fair  and  intelligible  interpretation  of  the  rela- 
tions of  the  predicted  Elijah-ministry  to  his  own. 
It  was  to  be  like  his  own  in  being  a  work  of  res- 
toration— the  restoration  and  abiding  establish- 
ment of  piety  and  love ;  like  his  own,  also,  in 
being  a  ministry  of  suffering  and  rejection  ;  like 
his  own,  and  yet  inferior  in  both  re.s])ects — in- 
ferior in  restoring  power  (compare  chaji.  1  :  6,  7) 
and  inferior  in  suffering.  This  Elijah-ministry 
had  been  performed,  and  was  no  longer  to  be 
expected ;  hence  any  transient  appearance  of  Eli- 
jah, sitch  as  they  had  witnessed,  need  make 
them  no  perplexity.  He  seems  plainly  to  in- 
dicate that  the  prophecj'  concerning  Elijah  has 
been  so  fulfilled  that  no  further  fulfilment  of 
it  is  to  be  expected.  He  distinctly  attaches  the 
prediction  to  the  time  next  before  his  own  min- 
istry, and  gives  no  hint  of  any  other  place  for 
it.  All  the  Christian  ages  have  heard  more  or 
less  of  an  Elijah  yet  to  come ;  but  there  is  no 
hint  in  prophecy  of  a  coming  Elijah,  except  in 
Mai.  4  :  5,  G,  and  our  Lord  himself  tells  us  that 
that  Elijah  has  come.  If  John  the  Baptist  de- 
nied tliat  he  was  Elijah,  he  denied  it  of  the  sense 
in  which  his  questioners  exjiected  an  Elijah ; 
and  he  could  not  then  have  given  the  ojiposite 
answer  without  ]ilcdging  himself  to  a  thomugh- 
ly  false  view  of  his  own  office.  It  is  worthy  of 
notice  that  Jesus  here  implicitly  ajijjlies  the 
name  "  great  and  dreadful  day  of  the  Lord,"  in 
Mai.  4  :  5,  ju.st  as  Peter  applies  the  similar  Ian- 


Ch.  IX.] 


MARK. 


131 


14  U  And  when  he  came  to  hi.i  disciples,  he  saw  a 
great  niuhitude  about  tliem,  and  the  scribes  question- 
ing with  them. 

15  And  straightway  all  the  people,  when  they  beheld 
him,  were  greatly  amazed  ;  anfl  running  to  him,  saluted 
him. 

IG  And  he  asked  the  scribes.  What  question  ye  with 
them  ? 

17  And  one  of  the  multitude  answered  and  said, 
Master,  I  have  brought  unto  thee  my  son,  which  hath 
a  dumb"  si)irit : 

l.s  And  wheresoever  he  taketh  him,  he  teareth  him; 
and  ho  tounieth,*  and  gnasheth  with  his  teeth,  and 
pinelh  away;  and  i  spake  to  thy  disciples,  that  they 
should  cast  him  out ;  and  they  could  not. 


14  And  when  they  came  to  the  disciples,  they  saw  a 
great  multitude  about  them, and  scribes  questioning 

15  with  theiu.    And  straightway  all  the  luultitude,  wlitii 
they  saw  him,  were  greatly  amazed,  and  running  to 

Hi  him  saluted  him.  And  he  asked  them,  Whatques- 
17  tion  ye  with  them?  And  one  of  the  multitude  an- 
swered him,  'Master,  1  brought  unto  thee  my  son, 
IS  who  hath  a  dumb  sjiirit;  and  wheresoever  it  taketh 
him,  it  -dasheth  him  down:  and  he  foameth,  and 
grindeth  his  teeth,  and  pineth  away :  and  1  spake  to 
thy  disciples  that  they  should  cast  it  out;  and  they 


a  Matt.  I'i  :  22;  Luke  11:U 6  Jude  IS.- 


-1  Or,  Teacher 2  Or,  rendech  him 


guage  of  Joel  2  :  31  (Acts  2 :  20)  to  the  time  of  the 
cstuljlishniont  of  his  kingdom  tlirougli  the  gos- 
pd. 

14-29.  THE  HEALING  OF  THE  DE- 
MONIAC WHOM  THE  DISCIPLES  COULD 
NOT  HEAL.  Parallels,  Matt.  17  :  14-21 ;  Luke 
9  :  37-43. — The  peculiar  qitality  and  vahie  of 
Mark's  narrative  may  well  be  seen  in  the  fact 
that  in  this  case  it  is  almost  exactly  as  long  as 
the  narratives  of  jNIatthew  and  Luke  combined. 
To  it  we  owe  almost  all  the  details  of  this  in- 
tensely vivid  scene,  the  other  evangelists  adding 
almost  nothing  to  our  knowledge.  Nearly  the 
whole  of  verses  14-lG  and  21-27  is  peculiar  to 
Mark.  In  all  human  writing  there  is  no  nar- 
rative or  des(}riptive  passage  that  bears  more 
unmistakably  than  this  the  internal  marks  of 
genuineness  and  truth.  It  speaks  for  itself, 
if  narrative  ever  did.  Is  it  not  a  little  singular 
that  this  mo.st  intensely  vivid  and  convincing 
of  scenes  should  centre  around  a  case  of  de- 
moniacal i)()ssessiun,  the  very  clement  in  the 
evangelical  record  upon  which  most  doubt  is 
cast  by  rationalistic  critics? 

14-10.  The  time  was  the  day  after  the  Trans- 
figuration (Luke),  and  the  place  was  the  foot 
of  the  mountain.  Early  in  the  day,  probably, 
.lesus  and  tlie  three  came  down,  the  three  bur- 
dened and  uplifted  by  their  glorious  secret ; 
thinking,  jierhaps,  how  Moses  with  shining 
face,  and  Joshua,  came  down  Mount  Sinai. 
It  is  to  Peter,  who  was  one  of  them,  that  we 
owe  the  mention  of  what  he  saw  in  coming 
down.  (Instead  of  he,  the  revisers,  on  man- 
usfi-ipt  authority,  read  "they.")  It  was  an  ex- 
cited throng  listening  eagerly  to  the  discussion 
of  "scribes"  (not  the  scribes)  with  the  nine 
apostles  and  any  other  disciples  who  may  have 
been  present.  How  vivid  is  the  picture  of  the 
effect  of  Jesus'  approach  !— the  excitement,  the 
amazement,  the  instantaneous  turning  away 
from  the  one  object  of  interest  to  him.— Great- 
ly amazed,  or  awestruck;  not,  so  far  as  we 
can  judge,  from  any  peculiarity  in  his  appear- 


ance, as  if  some  light  of  the  glory  were  still 
shining  in  his  face,  as  when  Moses  drew  near 
to  Israel  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain  (ex.  34: 
29-;i5),  for,  if  that  had  been  the  case,  we  should 
certainly  liave  heard  of  it ;  and  such  a  shining, 
too,  would  have  defeated  the  purpose  of  con- 
cealment. Eather  was  it  because  he  was  the 
person  of  whom  they  were  talking,  and  they 
were  at  once  delighted  and  impressed  by  a  cer- 
tain sense  of  soleitmity  by  the  appearing  of  him 
who  had  never  t.iled  in  a  work  of  miraculous 
healing. — The  eager  interest  with  which  they 
all  turned  from  futile  discussion  and  failure  to 
the  Mighty  One  appears  in  their  running  to 
meet  him.  But  he  cared  for  his  own,  and  came 
down  like  a  father  to  his  children  in  trouble, 
asking  the  crowd,  and  especially  the  scribes, 
what  they  were  discussing  with  his  friends.  He 
knew  their  weakness,  and  saw  that  they  were 
perplexed  and  defeated.  They  were  saluting 
him  with  welcome  after  his  absence — not  the 
nine  only,  but  the  nmltitude — when  he  broke 
in  with  his  tjuesticm. 

17,  18.  The  answer  came  frotn  the  most  in- 
terested, and  the  one  who  had  the  best  right  to 
tell  the  story.  One  of  the  multitude.  Mat- 
thew says  that  he  "came  kneeling."  and  Luke 
that  he  "cried  out"  with  his  reiiuest. — I  have 
brought  unto  thee  my  son,  which  hath  a 
dumb  spirit — i.  e.  a  spirit  that  makes  its  victim 
dumb ;  so  in  Matt.  9  :  32  and  12  :  22.  AVhen 
Jesus  addressed  the  spirit  (verse  25),  he  spoke  to 
it  as  dumb  and  deaf,  perhaps  because  of 
what  he  had  ob.served  in  additi(m  to  what  the 
father  told  him. — The  ad<litional  syini)tom3 
described  in  verse  18  are  those  of  violent  con- 
vulsions, and  plainly  they  are  those  of  epilepsy, 
which  in  tliis  case  was  complicated  with  in- 
sanity. Luke  uses  the  word  xparasnehi,  "to 
convulse,"  and  Mark,  at  verse  20,  the  .stronger 
compound  word  siw^para.iscin.  Matthew  says 
tliat  the  child  was  "  lunatic,"  or  epileptic  ;  but 
he  atlds  that  the  lunacy  was  the  work  of  a 
demon.     More  particularly,  when  the  demon 


132 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IX. 


19  He  answereth  him,  and  saith,  O  faithless"  genera- 
tion !  how  long  shall  I  he  with  you  ?  how  long  shall  I 
suffer  you?    bring  him  unto  me. 

20  And  they  brought  him  unto  him  :  and  when  he 
saw  him,  straightway  the  spirit  tare  him ;  and  he  fell 
on  the  ground,  and  wallowed  foaming. 

21  And  he  asked  his  father,  How  long  is  it  ago  since 
this  came  unto  him?    And  he  said.  Of  a  child :'' 

22  And  ofttimes  it  hath  ea.st  him  into  the  fire,  and 
into  the  waters,  to  destroy  him:  but  if  thou  canst  do 
any  thing,  have  compassion  on  us,  and  help  us. 


19  were  not  able.  And  he  answereth  them  and  saith, 
()  faithless  generation,  how  long  shall  I  be  with  you? 
how  long  shall  1  bear  with  you?  bring  him  unto  nie. 

20  And  they  brought  him  unto  him:  and  when  he  saw 
him,  straightway  the  spirit  hare  him  grievously ; 
and  he  fell  on  the  ground,  and  wallowed  foaming. 

21  And  he  asked  his  father,  How  long  time  is  it  since 
this  hath  come  unto  him?    And  he  said,  P'rom  a 

22  child.  And  ofttimes  it  hath  cast  him  both  into  the 
fire  and  into  tlie  waters,  to  destroy  him :  but  if  thou 
canst  do  anything,  have  compassion  on  us,  and  help 


a  Deut.  :12  :  20 ;  Ps.  78  :  8 ;  Heb.  3:10 6  Job  5  :  7  ;  Ps.  51  :  o.- 


-1  Or,  convulsed 


seized  the  boy  he  tore  him  or  convulsed  him, 
or,  as  some  explain  it,  threw  him  to  the  ground ; 
and  then  he  foamed  and  gnashed  his  teeth,  and 
the  consequence  was  that  he  pined  away  or  was 
steadily  wasting.  These  are  the  symptoms  of 
epilepsy,  which  was  well  known  among  the 
ancients,  and  was  regarded  by  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  as  a  sacred  disease,  brought  on  direct- 
ly by  supernatural  power  and  of  evil  omen. 
The  word  "lunatic,"  or  "moonstruck,"  is  ap- 
plied to  the  victim  in  this  case,  as  often,  prob- 
ably because  the  attacks  were  associated  with 
tlie  recurrence  of  the  full  moon.  The  questions, 
both  physiological  and  psycliological,  that  are 
connected  with  the  svtbject  of  demoniacal  pos- 
session are  full  of  difiicttlty ;  but  nothing  is 
more  certain  than  that  our  Lord  on  many  oc- 
casions, and  most  emphatically  on  this,  recog- 
nized the  presence  of  a  personality  distinct 
from  that  of  the  victim  and  commanded  it 
away. 

Tlie  man  said,  I  have  brought  onto  thee 
my  son — i.  e.  to  the  place  where  he  supposed 
that  Jesus  was,  because  his  company  was  there ; 
brought  him,  apparently,  half  in  hope  and 
half  in  despair :  this  was  tlie  last  resort,  and 
he  came  to  it  without  much  faith. — But  Jesus 
was  not  there  ;  probably  the  man  came  in  the 
cool  of  the  morning,  when  Jesus  and  the  three 
were  about  coming  down  from  the  mountain. 
And  I  spake  to  thy  disciples,  that  they 
should  cast  him  out ;  and  they  could  not. 
In  Luke,  "  I  entreated  thy  disciples."  Their  in- 
ability is  often  explained  by  the  fact  that  Jesus 
was  not  with  them,  but  they  had  cast  out  many 
demons  in  his  absence  when  he  sent  them  forth 
for  such  work  (chap.  6 :  13).  Then,  however,  they 
were  sent ;  and  perhaps  the  lack  of  the  con- 
sciousness of  mission  now  embarrassed  them. 
The  three  leading  apostles,  too,  were  absent, 
and  perhaps  tlie  company  at  the  foot  of 
the  mountain  felt  itself  to  be  really  the  less, 
though  actually  the  larger.  No  dotibt,  also,  the 
severity  of  the  case  gave  them  pause.  Their 
confidence  was  not  strong  enough  to  bear  the 
sense  of  ptiblicity  and  of  being  tested  that  came 
with  the  challenge ;  for  the  scribes  at  once  fol- 


lowed up  their  failure,  plying  them  with  ques- 
tions that  must  have  made  them  most  uncom- 
fortable. The  penalty  of  unbelieving  fear  is 
confusion.  (See  Jer.  1  :  17.)  Nor  was  there 
much  to  help  them  in  the  foith  of  the  father. 

19.  He  answereth  him,  and  saith.  The 
revisers'  text,  more  correctly,  "  He  answereth 
them  and  saith."  Not  to  the  afflicted  father, 
but  to  the  ineflftcient  disciples. — O  faithless 
generation!  N(jt  now  "of  little  faith;"  in 
Matthew  and  Luke,  "  Faithless  and  perverse 
generation."  Here  expressly,  as  in  chap.  8  :  18 
implicitly,  he  ranks  his  own  disciples  with  the 
generation  to  which  they  belong,  since  he  finds 
in  them  the  ordinary  unbelief.  They  ought,  he 
implies,  to  have  been  able  to  cast  out  the  evil 
spirit.  Perception  of  the  sadness  of  the  case 
probably  repressed  their  faith ;  but  it  ought  to 
have  aroused  their  compassion,  and  their  com- 
passion ought  to  have  increased  their  sense  of 
the  possibility  of  healing  through  the  grace  of 
Christ.  Our  Saviour  is  exacting  in  the  expecta- 
tion that  his  friends  will  be  in  possession  of  the 
spiritual  gifts  and  graces  that  he  offers  them. 
His  almost  impatient  questions  mean,  "  How 
long  shall  this  generation,  whose  unbelief  I  am 
learning  so  thoroughly,  vex  me  so?  How  long 
must  I  live  among  the  faithless  ?" — But  he  ends 
with  Bring  him  unto  me.  The  Mighty  One 
now  takes  hold  where  the  weak  have  failed. 

20.  The  sufferer  was  brought,  btit  the  sight 
of  the  great  Healer  maddened  the  malign  spirit; 
so  that  the  boy  went  into  a  violent  convulsion, 
and  wallowed  foaming  on  the  grotind. 
Was  it  the  dumbness  of  the  victim  that  pre- 
vented such  confession  as  that  of  chap.  1  :  34 ; 
3  :  11 ;  5:7?  There  was  no  confession,  and  no 
vocal  objection  or  entreaty  on  the  part  of  the 
sjiirit. 

21.  22.  The  sad  sight  arrested  even  the  Heal- 
er's mind  in  the  midst  of  his  act  of  mercy. 
Compassion  was  prompting  the  act,  and  one 
wottld  think  compassion  avouUI  urge  him  on 
to  finish  it.  But  nowhere  does  the  true  human 
thoughtfulness  of  Jestis  ap]>ear  more  plainly; 
he  looked  on  pityingly  while  the  boy  suffered, 
and  compassion  even  stopped  him  for  a  moment 


Ch.  IX.] 


MARK. 


133 


23  Jesus  said  unto  him,  If"  tho  canst  believe,  all 
things  (ire  possible  to  him  that  believeth. 

24  And  straightway  the  father  of  the  child  cried 
out,  and  said  with  tears,*  Lord,  I  believe;  help'  thou 
mine  unbelief. 


23  us.     And  .lesus  said  unto  him.  If  thou  canst!     All 

24  things  are  possible  to  him  that  believeth.     Straight- 
way the  father  of  the  child  cried  out,  and  said',  I 


.6  Ps.  126:5 c  Heb.  12:  2.. 


-1  Maoy  aucient 


while  he  tenderly  inquired  how  long  the  inflic- 
tion had  been  upon  him. — The  naturalness  of 
this  pause  is  inimitable ;  and  not  less  so  is  the 
father's  answer.  We  can  hear  in  it  the  tones 
of  anxiety  and  despair,  and  of  eagerness  for  the 
utmost  that  can  be  done.  Of— or  from — a 
child.  Then,  apparently,  the  boy  had  passed 
beyond  early  childhood,  though  in  verse  24  he 
is  called  by  the  diminutive  name  paldion,  "a 
young  or  little  child." — And  ofttimes  it  hath 
cast  him  into  the  fire,  and  into  the  waters 
to  destroy  him.  13ut  it  ha.s  been  baffled  thus 
far.  This  demoniac  had  more  watchful  friends 
than  the  one  at  Gergesa  (chap.  5:3),  who  had  no 
home  but  in  the  tombs.  It  was  but  too  common 
in  ancient  times  so  to  turn  maniacs  loose,  and 
this  boy  was  fortunate  above  many  in  having 
care  and  protection. — For  healing  at  the  hands 
of  Jesus  the  father  had  strong  desire,  but  very 
little  faith.  If  thou  canst  do  any  thing, 
have  compassion  on  us,  and  help  us, 
counting  himself  in  with  the  child  as  calling 
for  the  gift,  but  looking  upon  this  as  a  kind  of 
forlorn  hope,  concerning  which  he  had  as  much 
despair  iis  confidence.  The  disciples  liad  failed ; 
it  was  sujiposed  that  the  Master  had  more  pow- 
er, but  who  could  tell  ?  If  thou  canst  do  any 
thing  was  as  much  as  he  could  say.  Was  not 
this  one  of  the  faithless  generation?  But  there 
was  more  excuse  for  him  than  for  the  cUsciples, 
who  had  seen  so  nuu-h. 

23.  As  by  the  revi.sers,  the  word  believe 
should  be  omitted.  It  was  doubtless  added  by 
copyists,  though  very  early,  to  complete  an  im- 
perfect construction  and  explain  a  sentence 
which  without  some  such  help  they  could  not 
understand.  With  the  word  omitted,  Jesus 
took  ui)  the  father's  words,  "  If  thou  canst  do 
any  thing  for  us,"  or  rather,  merely.  If  thou 
canst,  and  gave  them  another  application. 
The  presence  of  the  definite  article  before  If 
thou  canst  indicates,  moreover,  that  the 
quoted  words  fonn  grammatically  a  i)art  of  liis 
sentence.  We  have  not  an  indignant  exclama- 
tion, as  if  he  had  .said  in  amazement,  "  If  thou 
canst !"  and  we  have  not  a  question,  as  if  he 
had  asked,  "  Do  you  say.  If  thou  canst?"  rath- 
er did  he  mean,  "As  for  that  if  thou  canst  of 
thine,  that  ei  dune,  all  things  are  possible 
(diinata)  to  him  that  believeth.'  The  play 
upon  the  words  {dime,  dunata)  cannot  be  repro- 


duced in  English,  except  very  imperfectly,  but 
it  is  something  like,  "  As  for  that  if  thoii  caiist 
of  thine,  all  things  can  be  to  him  that  believeth." 
By  this  he  means,  "  You  have  in(iuired  about 
ability  and  whether  any  help  is  possible,  but 
you  have  misplaced  the  question.  Thecjuestiou 
of  ability  is  in  you,  not  in  me.  Faith  is  the 
secret  of  ability  and  of  possibility.  The  power 
is  sufficient  on  my  part ;  is  it  on  yours?  I  can 
give,  but  can  you  receive?"  Yet  the  thought 
is  expressed,  not  so  much  reprovingly  as  cheer- 
ingly ;  for  the  conclusion  is  not  a  severe  one, 
but  rather  the  hopeful  announcement  of  the 
boundless  breadth  of  the  possibilities  of  faith. 
This  is  another  way  of  saying,  "  Believest  thou 
that  I  am  able  to  do  this?"  but  with  a  gracious 
hint  that  the  man  will  do  well  to  believe.  So 
does  the  great  Object  of  faith  love  to  encourage 
faith.     He  loves  to  be  trusted. 

24.  The  father's  answer  was  a  cry  strong  and 
eager,  but  the  words  with  tears  are  of  doubtful 
manuscript  authority.  Lord  should  quite  cei*- 
tainly  be  omitted,  and  the  inserticm  of  thou, 
which  in  the  Greek  is  unexpressed,  misrepre- 
sents the  rapidity  of  the  man's  utterance  in  the 
eagerness  of  his  impassioned  prayer.  "  I  believe, 
help  my  unbelief."  The  saying  is  commoidy, 
perhaps,  taken  to  mean,  "  I  believe,  but  I  desire 
to  believe  more  worthily ;  increase  my  faitli." 
This  makes  help  to  mean  "  remove"  or  "abol- 
ish " — a  sense  for  which  no  good  support  can 
be  found.  If  the  man  had  meiuit  to  tusk  that 
his  faith  might  be  rendered  equal  to  the  occa- 
sion, one  would  not  expect  him  to  ask  it  in  this 
ambiguous  way;  and  especially  is  it  certain 
that  he  would  not  use  the  same  word,  help, 
that  he  had  just  employed  in  quite  another 
sense. — This  word  is  repeated  from  the  former 
prayer,  have  compassion  on  us,  and  help 
us,  and  naturally  means,  ;us  there,  "heal  my 
son."  So  the  thought  is,  "  I  believe,  and  yet 
my  faith  is  scarcely  worthy  of  the  name;  I 
hardly  dare  to  call  it  faith  or  to  plead  by  it  as  a 
believing  man.  Yet  do  not  wait  for  something 
better,  but  grant  my  prayer,  even  to  this  faith 
which  is  no  faith.  I  do  believe ;  but  if  my  be- 
lief is  no  better  than  unbelief,  still  heal  my  son. 
Do  not  sternly  judge  my  faith,  but  help  me  as 
I  am."  There  is  no  contradiction  here,  and 
scarcely  even  paradox,  but  only  deep  sincerity 
in  the  beginnings  of  faith,  joined  with  the  eager- 


134 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IX. 


25  When  Jesus  saw  that  the  people  came  running 
together,  he  rebuked  the  foul  spirit,  saying  unto  him, 
Thm  dumb  and  deaf  spirit,  I  charge  thee,  come  out  of 
him,  and  enter  no  more  into  him. 

26  And  Ihf  spirit  cried,  and  rent"  him  sore,  and  came 
out  of  him:  and  he  was  as  one  dead;  insomuch  that 
many  said.  He  is  dead. 

27  But  .lesus  took  him  by  the'  hand,  and  lifted  him 
up;  and  he  arose. 

28  And  when  he  was  come  into  the  house,  his  dis- 
ciples asked  him  privately,  Why  could  not  we  cast 
him  out? 

2!)  And  he  said  unto  them.  This  kind  can  come  forth 
by  nothing  but  by  prayer"  and  fasting."* 


25  believe ;  help  thou  mine  unbelief.  And  when  Jesus 
saw  that  a  multitude  came  running  together,  he  re- 
buked the  unclean  spirit,  saying  unto  him.  Thou 
dumb  and  deaf  spirit,  I  command  thee,  come  out  of 

26  him,  and  enter  no  more  into  him.  And  having  cried 
out,  and  Horn  him  much,  he  came  out:  and  t/ie  child 
became  as  one  dead ;  insomuch  that  the  more  part 

27  said.  He  is  dead.     But  Jesus  took  him  by  the  hand, 

28  and  raised  him  up;  and  he  arose.  And  when  he  was 
come  into  the  house,  his  disciples  asked  him  privately, 

29  -sai/inff,  We  could  not  ca.st  it  out.  And  he  s»id  unto 
them.  This  kind  can  come  out  by  nothing,  save  by 
prayer^. 


a  Rev.  12  :  12 b  Isa.  41  :  13 c  Eph.6  :  19 dl  Cor.  9  :  27. 1  Or,  conmdsed 2  Or,  How  is  it  that  tee  couldnot  cast  it 

out  f 3  Mauy  ancient  authorities  add  and/asting. 


ness  of  strong  desire  for  a  special  gift.  This  is 
an  early  "Just  as  I  am,"  and  a  very  rich  and 
suggestive  one.  If  the  man  had  paused  to  study 
his  own  faith  and  to  make  it  suflficient,  and 
withheld  his  prayer  till  he  could  make  it  satis- 
factory, would  he  more  have  injured  himself  or 
grieved  the  Master?  He  was  plea.sing  Jesus 
best  when  he  ventured  wholly  on  liim,  trust- 
ing all  the  defects  of  his  faith  to  the  mercy  from 
which  he  was  imploring  help.  "  Just  as  I  am  " 
is  the  word  most  acceptable  to  him. 

25-37.  The  excitement  was  rising,  and  it 
was  time  that  the  scene  should  he  brought  to 
an  end,  more  especially  as  the  father  was  now 
ready  in  heart  to  receive  the  gift  for  which  he 
prayed.  The  form  of  exorcism  employed  in 
this  case  was  the  most  elaborate  and  solemn 
of  all  that  are  recorded  in  the  Gospels.  Thou 
dumb  and  deaf  spirit.  So  addressed  with 
reference  to  its  work  upon  the  child,  the  effects  j 
of  its  agency. — I  charge  thee.  I  is  emphatic 
in  the  Greek — "  I,  thou  knowest  who,"  as  the 
.spirit  knew  at  chap.  1 :  24.  The  emphasis  upon 
the  pronoun  is  our  Lord's  solemn  self-assertion 
in  the  spiritual  realm.— Come  out  of  him. 
The  customary  command ;  but  the  addition, 
and  enter  no  more  into  him,  is  found  here 
alone.  It  is  pleasant  to  think  that  tliis  excep- 
tional command  sprang  from  our  Lord's  per- 
ception of  the  exceptional  severity  of  the  case, 
and  the  more  than  usual  interest  that  he  seems 
to  have  taken  in  it. — The  rage  of  a  hostile  will 
when  compelled  to  yield  vented  itself  in  the 
final  cry  and  convulsion ;  for  here  also  the 
word  is  "  convulsed,"  rather  tlian  rent. — How 
intensely  vivid  is  the  narrative  in  verses  26,  27 
• — the  prostration  of  the  child,  the  whisperings 
of  the  spectators,  the  kindness  of  tlie  Healer ! 
He  took  him  by  the  hand,  and  lifted  him 
up ;  and  he  arose.  Luke,  and  lie  alone, 
notes  the  amazement  of  the  beholders  at  tlie 
mighty  power  or  majesty  of  God.  The  same 
word  is  used  in  2  Pet.  1  :  16  of  the  glory  or 
majesty  which  the  three  disciples  had  seen  in 


Jesus  on  the  very  night  before  tliis  healing. — 
This  is  one  of  the  many  cases  in  which  we 
would  be  thankful  to  see  what  has  been  hid- 
den, and  know  the  subsequent  relations  of  this 
father  and  child  to  Jesus.  Did  the  child  ap- 
preciate the  Healer  and  grow  up  into  a  holy 
Christian  manhood?  Were  all  the  demons 
exorcised  in  his  soul?  Did  the  father  grow 
in  faith,  as  one  ought  after  such  a  beginning? 
— On  the  general  subject  of  demoniacal  posses- 
sion, see  the  note  on  the  first  case  recorded  by 

Mark  (chap,  l  :  2.V27). 

28,  29.  This  final  reference  to  the  foilure 
of  the  disciples  is  omitted  by  Luke  and  given 
more  fully  by  Matthew,  wlio  adds  here  a  say- 
ing about  the  power  of  faith  similar  to  that 
which  followed  the  bligliting  of  tlie  fruitless 
tree  (Mark  11:23).  When  he  Avas  come  into 
the  house,  or  "  liome,"  to  the  temporary 
home  tliat  the  company  had  in  that  region. — 
Why  could  not  we  cast  him — rather,  "it" — 
out  ?  The  question  had  already  been  answer- 
ed by  the  exclamation,  O  faithless  gen- 
eration !  in  verse  19,  bttt  tliey  were  not  (juick 
to  take  reproof,  and  this  inquiry  was  one  of 
the  many  ilkistrations  of  their  slowness,  with 
which  he  had  to  be  patient.  Yet  perhaps  un- 
belief never  fully  understands  its  own  failures, 
but  supposes  tliere  must  be  some  reason  for 
them  to  be  sought. — This  kind  (of  demons) 
can  come  forth  by  nothing  but  by  pray- 
er and  fasting  (some  manuscrijjts  omit  and 
fasting) — (■.  e.  This  is  an  extreme  case,  one 
that  can  be  made  to  yield  only  to  foith  nour- 
ished by  the  earnest  use  of  all  the  means  of 
strength.  Prayer  is  recognized  as  the  first, 
great  spiritual  agency ;  and  if  the  reference  to, 
fasting  is  genuine,  our  Lord  associates  with 
prayer  self-denial,  regarded,  evidently,  as  the 
fitting  means  of  attaining  a  holy  self-com- 
mand. Fasting  in  itself,  considered  as  an  end, 
would  cej-tainly  command  his  instantaneous 
and  unutterable  contempt,  as  did  tlie  many 
performances    of   a   similar    kind    that    came 


Ch.  IX.] 


MARK. 


135 


30  If  And  they  departed  thence,  and  passed  through 
Galilee  ;  and  he  would  not  that  any  man  should  know  it. 

31  For  he  tauj,'ht  his  disciples,  and  said  unto  them, 
The  .Son  ol'  num  is  delivered  into  the  hands  of  men, 
and  they  shall  kill  him;  and  after  that  he  is  killed,  he 
shall  rise  the  third  day. 

:i>  Hut  they  understood  not  that  saying,  and  were 
afraid  to  ask"  him. 

li'.i  1j  And''  he  eanie  to  Capernaum:  and  being  in  the 
house,  he  asked  them,  What  was  it  that  ye  disputed 
among  yourselves  by  the  way? 


30  And  they  went  forth  from  thence,  and  passed 
through  (ialilee;   and  he  would   not  that  any  man 

31  should  know  it.  For  he  taught  his  disciples,  and 
said  unto  them.  The  Son  of  man  is  delivered  up 
into  the  hands  of  men,  and  they  shall  kill  him; 
and  when  he  is  killed,  after  three  days  he  shall  rise 

32  again.  But  they  understood  not  the  saying,  and 
were  afraid  to  ask  him. 

33  And  they  came  to  Capernaum  :  and  when  he  was 
in  the  house  be  asked  them,  What  were  ye  reasoning 


a  JohD  16:  19 h  Matt.  18  :  1 ;  Luke  9  :  46;  rj  :  24,  etc. 


under  liis  notice;  and  fasting  in  general  re- 
ceived from  liiiu  such  comments  as  showed 
that  he  esteemed  it  not  very  highly.  (See 
notes  on  chap.  2  :  18-22.)  But  prayer  and 
self-control  go  harmoniously  together  as  the 
means  hy  which  an  efficient  faith  may  best  be 
song]  it. 

30-32.  THE  RETURN  TO  GALILEE,  AND 
RENEWED  PREDICTION  OF  THE  DEATH 
AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS.  Parallek, 
Matt.  17  :  22,  23;  Luke  9  :  43-15.  — Turning 
southward  from  the  region  of  Mount  Hermon, 
Jesus  and  his  company  returned  to  their  old 
liome.  They  passed  through  Galilee; 
and  he  would  not  that  any  man  should 
knoAV  it.  All  peculiar  to  Mark.  He  wished 
to  awaken  no  public  excitement  whatever,  and 
the  reason  is  expressly  given  by  Mark  alone: 
he  taught  his  disciples,  and  said  unto 
them,  or,  literally,  "For  he  was  teaching  his 
disciples,  and  was  saying  to  them,"  etc.  A 
touching  illustration  of  Matt.  16  :  21,  and  of 
the  change  in  teaching  that  is  there  said  to 
have  come  in  "from  that  time" — the  time  of 
the  great  confession  at  Cassarea  Philippi.  It 
was  thenceft)rth  the  purpose  of  Jesus  to  im- 
press the  coming  events  upon  the  minds  of  his 
disciples ;  and  so,  on  the  homeward  journey, 
he  took  care  to  secure  all  jiossible  quiet  and 
seclusion,  that  this  lesson  miglit,  if  it  were 
po-ssible,  be  learned.  He  knew  that  in  Gal- 
ilee his  friends  would  be  exj)o.sed  to  the  intlu- 
ence  of  the  popular  ideas,  and  might  be  even 
slower  yet  to  receive  such  truths  as  these ; 
tiierefore  wliile  he  had  them  alone  he  would 
.seize  the  moment  to  teach  them  as  much  as 
they  could  jiossibly  receive.  Painful  teaching 
it  was,  both  to  the  pupils  and  to  the  Teacher; 
l)ut  the  time  was  swiftly  coming,  and  the 
teaching  must  not  be  withheld.  The  delib- 
erate and  persistent  planning  for  a  secret  jour- 
ney shows  how  much  of  this  painful  teaching 
must  liavc  been  done  on  the  way,  and  how 
intent  the  Master's  heart  was  upon  it. — The 
Son  of  man  is  delivered  into  the  hands 
of  men.  Made  a  victim  to  their  will.  Here  it 
is  men  in  all  tliree  reports;  not  the  religious 


leaders  of  Israel,  as  in  chap.  8:  31.  It  is  of  hu- 
man malice  and  wickedness  that  mention  is 
made,  the  evil  will  of  men  toward  the  Son  of 
man. — And  they  shall  kill  him  ;  and  after 
that  he  is  killed,  he  shall  rise  the  third 
day.  A  ])eculiar  mode  of  expression,  which 
looks  as  if  it  were  intended  to  lay  special  em- 
phasis on  the  fact  and  reality  of  the  killing. 
Of  course  a  brief  sentence  like  tliis  can  furnish 
only  the  merest  hint  of  the  substance  of  the 
teaching  that  occupied  them  during  that  quiet 
journey.  —  As  the  Master's  attempt  to  avoid 
observation  illustrates  his  sense  of  the  import- 
ance of  this  teaching,  so  it  illustrates  also  the 
great  slowness  of  the  disciples  to  understand 
it.  Their  various  and  inconsistent  feelings  are 
mirrored  in  the  three  reports.  In  Matthew 
the  eifect  is  that  they  "  were  very  sorrowful," 
grieved  that  such  a  prospect  should  be  offered 
in  place  of  their  high  hopes ;  in  Mark  and 
Lukc^ — much  more  elaborately  stated  in  Luke 
— they  understood  not  that  saying,  and 
were  afraid  to  ask  him.  Perplexity  and 
reserve  were  the  etfccts  of  liis  teaching:  it  was 
mysterious  to  tliem,  and  the  solemnity  and 
dreadfulne.ss  of  his  words  sealed  their  lips  from 
inquiring  what  it  meant. — But  if  they  were 
afraid  to  ask  him,  they  failed  to  understand 
their  Master  himself  as  truly  as  his  dark  words. 
He  wished  to  be  understood,  and  he  now  wishes 
the  same.  He  approves  and  loves  the  reverently 
inquiring  spirit. 

33-50.  ARRIVAL  AT  CAPERNAUM  AND 
CONVERSATION  THERE.  SUGGESTED  BY 
THE  AMBITION  AND  EXCLUSIVENESS 
OF  THE  DISCIPLES.  ParnUcls,  Matt.  18  : 1-9; 
Luke  9  :  4r>-50.— Matt.  10  :  42  is  jiarallel  to  verse 
41,  and  Luke  17  : 1,  2  to  verse  42  ;  but  these  say- 
ings are  assigned  by  Matthew  and  Luke  to  other 
occasions.  Matthew  inserts  just  before  this  i)as- 
sage,  after  mentioning  the  arrival  at  Capernaum, 
the  story  of  the  miraculous  )>roviding  of  tlie 
tribute-money  for  Jesus  and  Peter. 

33,  34.  Jesus  had  been  absent  from  Caper- 
naum not  far  from  five  months.  He  had  de- 
parted just  after  the  jiassover,  in  April,  and  now 
it  must  have  been  near  the  beginning  of  Octo- 


136 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IX. 


34  But  they  held  their  peace :  for  by  the  way  they 
had  disputed  among  themselves  who  should  be  the 
greatest. 

35  And  he  sat  down,  and  called  the  twelve,  and  saith 
unto  them.  If"  any  man  desire  to  be  first,  <Ae  same  shall 
be  last  of  all,  and  servant  of  all. 

36  And  he  took  a  child,  and  set  him  in  the  midst  of 
them  :  and  when  he  had  taken  him  in  his  arms,  he 
Bald  unto  them, 


34  in  the  way?  But  they  held  their  peace:  for  they 
had  disputed  one  with  another  in  the  way,  who  u-as 

35  the  'greatest.  And  he  sat  down,  and  called  the 
twelve;  and  he  saith  unto  them,  If  any  man  would 
be  first,  he  shall  be  last  of  all,  and  minister  ol  all. 

3G  And  he  took  a  little  child,  and  set  him  in  the  midst 
of  them :  and  taking  him  in  his  arms,  he  said  unto 


o  ch.  10  :  «  ;  Matt.  20  :  26.- 


-1  Gr.  greater. 


ber.  (See  Andrews's  it/e  o/oitr  Xor(i.)  He  had 
returned  once,  meanwhile,  to  the  immediate 
vicinity  of  Capernaum  (chap.  8 :  lo),  but  there  is 
no  evidence  that  he  was  seen  in  Capernaum  it- 
self. The  length  of  the  present  visit  cannot  be 
ascertained,  but  it  cannot  have  been  great,  cer- 
tainly not  more  than  a  very  few  weeks.  It  is  the 
last  recorded  visit  to  Galilee,  and,  as  most  sup- 
pose, the  last  visit.  Some  think  (as  Andrews) 
that  there  was  probably  another  visit  after  he 
had  attended  the  feast  of  tabernacles  at  Jerusa- 
lem ;  but  the  conclusion  is  inferential,  and  this 
is  the  last  sojourn  in  Galilee  concerning  which 
we  have  any  information.  From  this  visit  we 
have  the  report  of  a  few  discourses  and  of  the 
one  miracle  mentioned  above,  but  we  have  no 
report  of  any  dealings  with  friends  or  enemies 
beyond  his  own  circle,  and  no  indication  of  the 
spirit  in  whicli  he  was  received  after  his  absence. 
— And  being  in  the  house,  or  "  having  come 
into  the  house."  Matthew,  "in  that  hour" — 
i.  e.  in  the  hour  of  the  miraculous  i)roviding 
of  the  tribute-money.  Hence,  Mark  probably 
means  when  he  had  come  into  the  house  after 
that  transaction.— The  house.  Most  likely  the 
house  of  Peter,  as  in  chap.  1  :  29.— The  discus- 
sion as  to  who  should  be  the  greatest,  to 
which  Jesus  now  referred,  had  taken  place  by 
the  way ;  we  know  not  where,  but  probably 
not  far  Ijack  on  the  journey.  Quite  certainly, 
the  spirit  of  it  was  still  present  in  their  minds. 
They  could  not  escape  from  their  carnal  notions 
of  the  kingdom.  It  was  plain  that  some  great 
event  was  not  llir  off;  the  Master's  words  were 
foreboding,  indeed,  but  in  any  literal  sense  they 
were  scarcely  intelligible,  and  they  did  not  in- 
terfere much  with  the  carnal  hopes ;  and  so  the 
question  about  rank  in  the  kingdom  was  nat- 
ural enough  to  them.  Meanwhile,  Jesus  had 
honored  Peter  at  Csesarea  Philippi,  and  had 
quickly  degraded  him  again  ;  he  had  taken  the 
chosen  three  up  the  mountain  with  him  and 
spent  the  night,  and,  though  the  nine  did  not 
know  how  great  was  the  honor  that  he  had 
then  conferred  upon  them,  the  three  did  know  ; 
and  now  he  had  miraculously  paid  the  temple- 
tax  for  Peter  and  himself  In  their  sensitive 
and  expectant  state  all  this  would  be  fuel  to 


the  fire  of  their  ambitious  strife. — How  lifelike 
the  scene  of  questioning !  After  all  was  over, 
when  he  had  them  alone  in  the  house,  he  asked 
them  what  they  had  been  talking  of;  but  they 
were  silent,  knowing  what  their  discussion  had 
been,  and  how  unlike  the  spirit  of  their  Master. 
Had  they  supposed  that  such  a  discussion  would 
escape  his  notice? 

35.  Mark  alone  shows  us  the  movements  by 
which  he  called  attention  to  his  coming  utter- 
ance. He  sat  down — so  taking  the  attitude  in 
which  the  teachers  of  that  land  were  wont  to 
speak  (so  Matt.  5  :  1)— and  called  the  twelve 
about  him,  especially  to  hear. — Their  discussion 
had  evoked  a  special  and  weighty  word.  The 
saying  is  not,  as  a  reader  of  the  English  text 
might  suppose,  a  sentence  of  degradation  upon 
the  ambitious.  It  is  not  that  one  who  cherishes 
the  desire  to  be  first  shall  be  condemned  by  way 
of  punishment  to  the  last  and  lowest  i)lace.  It 
is  rather  a  definition  of  the  true  desire  to  be 
first.  The  shall,  or  "will"  (for  the  verb  is  a 
simple  future),  means  here  about  the  same  as 
"must,"  or  "must  if  he  is  to  be  successful." 
If  any  one  desires  to  be  first,  and  wishes  to 
reach  the  true  first  rank  according  to  Christian 
principles,  lie  will  willingly  become  last  of 
all,  and  servant  [diakonos)  of  all.  Tlie  high- 
est place  must  be  sought  by  accepting  the  lowest. 
As  to  his  own  spirit  and  temper,  the  man  must 
take  the  humblest  place ;  and  as  to  his  work,  it 
must  be  the  work  of  humble  and  useful  service. 
Humility  and  unselfishness  are  the  way  to  high 
rank  in  the  kingdom  of  God ;  nay,  they  consti- 
tute high  rank,  they  are  greatness.  The  chief 
servant  is  tlie  Lord,  and  all  servants  serving  in 
his  spirit  not  only  shall  be  great,  but  are  great. 
He  reigns  who  loves  and  serves.  The  thought 
is  more  fully  expressed  in  chap.  10  :  42-45,  where 
his  own  example  is  given  as  the  great  argument 
and  illustration.  (See  notes  there.)  Possibly 
it  may  have  been  given  here  intentionally  in 
briefer  form  as  a  seed  for  subseciuent  growth. 

36.  Now  comes  the  object-lesson,  the  familiar 
illustration,  one  that  would  always  be  before 
their  eyes  and  might  daily  recall  the  truth  that 
he  had  taught  them.  He  took  a  child.  In 
all  three  reports  it  is  a  little  child.    In  Matthew, 


Ch.  IX.] 


MARK. 


137 


37  Whosoever"  shall  receive  one  of  such  children  in 
my  naiiit',  receiveth  me:  and  whosoever  shall  receive 
nie,  reeeiveth  not  nic,  but  him  that  sent  me. 

3>S  %  And  John  answered  him,  saying,  Master,  we  saw' 
one  castiiiLi;  out  devils  in  thy  name,  and  he  foUoweth 
not  us:  and  we  forbad  him,  because  he  followeth  not  us. 


37  them,  Whosoever  shall  receive  one  of  such  little 
children  in  my  name,  reeeiveth  me:  and  whosoever 
receivetli  uie,  reeeiveth  not  me,  but  him  that  sent 
me. 

38  John  said  unto  him,  'Master,  we  saw  one  casting 
out  demons  in  thy  name :  and  we  forbade  him,  be- 


a  Lukes  :48....6Num.  U  :  26-28.- 


"  Calling;  to  liiin  a  little  child,"  which  must  have 
been  within  hearing.  Was  it  the  child  of  one 
of  the  dwellers  in  the  house?  The  child  of 
Andrew  or  Peter?  Not  improbable  is  the  con- 
jecture that  it  was  Peter's  child. — He  set  the 
child  in  the  midst  of  them — Luke,  "by  his 
own  side" — and  then,  as  Mark  alone  adds, 
when  he  had  taken  him  in  his  arms.  The 
word  is  the  same  as  at  chap.  10  :  l(i,  and  a  sim- 
ilar expression  is  used  at  Luke  2  :  28,  where 
Jesus  himself  is  in  like  manner  embraced  by 
the  aged  Simeon.  Is  it  wrong  to  suggest  that 
if  this  was  Peter's  child,  it  would  be  in  Peter's 
memory  that  this  act  of  tenderness  would  most 
certainly  live,  and  that  in  Mark's  Gospel  it 
would  most  certainly  appear? — Here  was  the 
picture  for  them  to  rememl)er,  the  little  child 
in  the  anus  of  Jesus,  the  syml)ol  of  true  great- 
ness in  his  kingdom.  Matthew,  "  Whosoever 
therefore  shall  humble  himself  as  this  little 
child,  the  same  is  great  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  Ilunulity,  simplicity,  trustfulness, 
are  the  marks  of  greatness. 

37.  But  the  danger  is  that  this  greatness  will 
not  be  recognized.  Any  man  of  the  world  can 
appreciate  worldly  greatness,  but  to  recognize 
and  honor  the  true  Christian  greatness  is  one  of 
the  highest  of  all  Christian  acts.  Whosoever 
shall  receive  one  of  snch  children  in  my 
name.  Literally,  "upon  my  name" — i.  e.  upon 
my  name  as  the  ground  of  the  action,  as  the 
reason  for  the  receiving;  so  in  Peter's  discourse 
(aoi8  2:,-}8).  Literally,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you,  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ," 
the  recognition  of  him  being  the  ground  of  the 
action.  In  Luke  it  is,  "  Whosoever  shall  receive 
this  child  in  my  name ;"  in  Matthew,  "  Whoso- 
ever shall  receive  one  such  child  in  my  naiue;" 
in  Mark,  Tischendorf  reads,  with  some  good  aii- 
thorities,  "Whosoever  shall  receive  one  of  those 
cliildren  in  my  name,"  instead  of  one  of  snch 
children.  In  any  case,  the  thought  issuthcient- 
ly  determined  by  the  explanatory  language  of 
Matt.  18:0:  "  One  of  these  little  ones  that  believe 
in  me."  The  child  who  is  to  be  received  in  Christ's 
name  is  notthechild  thatstood  amongthetwelve 
that  day,  or  any  other  child,  regarded  as  a  child. 
That  was  only  the  symbol,  as  Jesus  exi)re^y 
said.  As  a  symbol,  every  such  child  is  to  be 
appreciated  and  loved ;  but  the  "  child  "  that  he 


means  is  "  one  of  these  truly  childlike  ones  of 
whom  I  aiu  speaking."  To  receive  such  a  one 
"  upon  his  name  "  is  to  accept  and  honor  a  hum- 
ble Christian  because  he  is  a  humble  Christian. 
— Now  he  tells  how  great  an  act  such  a  receiv- 
ing is.  To  see  and  love  the  divine  beauty  that 
dwells  in  the  spirit  of  a  little  child  is  to  see  and 
love  the  divine  beauty  of  Jesus  Christ  himself; 
and  to  receive  him  is  not  an  act  whose  meaning 
ends  with  itself:  it  is  to  see  and  love  the  divine 
beauty  of  the  living  God  who  sent  him.  The  imity 
of  excellence,  in  man,  Christ,  and  God,  is  here 
positively  affirmed,  and  the  true  Christian  ideal 
of  character  is  declared  to  be  the  character  of 
God.  Moreover,  the  character  of  God  is  revealed 
as  a  character  that  is  to  be  imitated  by  hmnility 
in  man.  Similar  language  occurs  in  Matt.  10  : 
40  and  John  13  :  20  ;  but  the  contexts  are  differ- 
ent, and  neither  passage  contains  the  full  thought 
of  this. 

38.  The  mention  of  receiving  some  one  on 
the  ground  of  his  bearing  Jesus'  name  and  cha- 
racter reminded  John  of  what  the  tlisciples  had 
done  with  one  man  who  at  least  might  be  such 
a  one  as  the  Master  meant.  We  saw  one. 
Not  named,  and  perhajis  not  more  definitely 
known ;  no  impostor,  but  a  true  believer,  who, 
instead  of  joining  himself  to  the  company  of 
the  apostles,  lunl  gone  out  by  himself  to  do  good 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  with  faith  sufficient  to 
control  the  demons. — One  of  the  profoundly 
interesting  unwritten  liistories  of  the  gospel 
would  be  the  story  of  this  man.  What  can  his 
motives  have  been  in  thus  taking  ui>  an  inde- 
pendent mission  of  healing,  instead  of  joining 
himself  to  the  blaster?  Had  he  more,  or  less, 
of  the  spirit  of  Jesus  than  if  he  had  been  in- 
clined only  to  follow  hiiu?  How  well  can  he 
have  apiirehended  the  higher  excellences  of 
our  Lord?  What  class  of  succcs.ses  can  we 
think  that  he  obtained?  C<ndd  he  tench  the 
peojile  to  whom  he  was  a  blessing?  How  did 
he  first  become  aware  of  his  power?  How 
long  did  it  la.st?  Did  he  ever  come  to  follow  as 
a  disciple?  And  what  were  his  subsequent  re- 
lations to  Christ  and  the  gospel?  The  biog- 
raphy of  this  unknown  man  would  be  a  very 
interesting  chajiter  in  tlie  evangelical  stor>'. — 
We  forbad  him,  becanse  he  followeth 
not  us  (Luke,  "  followeth  not  with  us  "J.    Be- 


138 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IX. 


39  But  Jesus  said,  Forbid  him  not :  for  there"  is  no 
man  which  shall  do  a  miracle  in  my  name,  that  can 
lightly  speak  evil  of  me. 

4U  i-  or"  he  that  is  not  against  us,  is  on  our  part. 


39  cause  he  followed  not  us.  But  Jesus  said,  Forbid 
him  not :  for  there  is  no  man  who  shall  do  a  'mighty 
work   in   my  name,  and   be   able  quickly  to  speak 

40  evil  of  me.     For  he  that  is  not  against  us  is  for  us. 


a  1  Cor.  12  :  3 b  Matt.  12  : 


-1  Gr.  power. 


cause  lie  is  not  of  our  company,  and  is  not  pro- 
fessing thy  name  in  the  i-ight  way.  They  sui> 
poaed  tluit  sucli  power  as  he  was  using  was  re- 
served as  a  privilege  for  those  who  followed 
Jesus  as  they  did.  Having  themselves  had  a 
similar  mission,  they  supposed  that  none  could 
be  obtained,  excei^t  as  they  obtained  it.  From 
this  case,  however,  we  learn,  as  they  did,  that 
the  power  of  Jesus  flowed  out  more  widely  than 
to  the  immediate  circle  of  his  followers.  Their 
exclusive  spirit  is  too  often  the  spirit  of  the 
privileged.  God  has  more  ways  than  one  to 
communicate  the  gifts  of  his  grace,  and  his 
field  is  wider  than  we  often  think.— It  is  not 
certain  that  John  was  prominent  in  the  forbid- 
ding, though  he  confesses  his  share  in  it.  Ra- 
ther does  he  seem  to  have  had  his  misgivings 
about  it,  and  to  have  been  quite  willing  to  lay 
the  case  before  the  Master  for  his  judgment. 
However  this  may  be,  one  likes  so  to  interpret 
his  remark,  which  is  too  brief  to  allow  of  cer- 
tainty as  to  its  motive. 

39,  40.  The  answer,  which  is  an  application 
of  Matt.  7  :  20,  "  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know 
them,''  is  full  of  common  sense,  and  not  less 
full  of  the  divine  thought  toward  man.  Trans- 
late as  in  the  Revision  :  "  Forljid  him  not:  for 
there  is  no  man  who  shall  do  a  mighty  work  in 
my  name,  and  be  al)le  quickly  to  speak  evil  of 
me.  For  he  that  is  not  against  us  is  for  us." 
"Upon  my  name,"  as  before,  in  verse  37 — upon 
my  name  is  the  ground  of  confidence  for  the 
miraculous  work. — The  word  that  has  been 
rendered  lightly  should  be  translated  "  quick- 
ly "  or  "soon,"  though  the  thought  differs  not 
much  from  that  of  "easily"  or  "readily." 
liightly  conveys  too  much  the  idea  of  thought- 
lessness, which  is  not  the  right  idea.  Speak 
evil  (knkologcsai)  is  scarcely  a  strong  enough 
word ;  for  the  original  almost  means  "  curse." 
The  thought  in  our  Lord's  answer  is  somewhat 
like  this :  "  The  question  is.  Who  ought  to  be 
received  as  a  friend,  and  who  to  be  rejected  as 
an  enemy?  On  this  question  judge  not  accord- 
ing to  the  aj)pearance,  but  judge  righteous  judg- 
ment. If  a  man  has  faith  enough  in  me  to 
work  a  miracle  in  my  name,  he  cannot  readily 
turn  and  act  the  part  of  an  enemy  and  cast  in 
his  lf)t  with  those  who  revile  me.  Such  a  man 
can  be  trusted  as  a  friend ;  he  is  on  our  side. 
Do  not  reject  him  or  forbid  him,  then.    No  one 


is  to  be  rejected  but  an  enemy,  no  one  forbidden 
but  he  who  is  doing  an  enemy's  work."  He 
did  not  mean  to  say  that  negative  friendliness  is 
enough,  as  if  he  had  said.  Count  a  man  a  friend 
if  he  is  not  an  open  enemy.  Rather  did  he 
mean  that  this  man  was  a  friend  just  so  far  as 
he  was  doing  a  friend's  work,  and  therefore  de- 
served to  be  treated  as  a  friend ;  and,  moreover, 
there  was  an  element  in  the  doing  of  Jesus' 
work  that  would  tend  to  make  it  morally  im- 
possible for  the  man  to  become  an  enemy. 
Since  he  was  acting  as  a  friend,  and  had  in 
some  degree  a  moral  certainty  of  remaining  a 
friend,  as  a  friend  he  must  be  recognized.  We 
are  reminded  of  the  jealou.sy  of  Joshua  for 
Moses,  and  of  Moses'  noble  reply,  "  Would 
God  that  all  the  Lord's  people  were  prophets" 
(Num.  11:29),  and  of  Paul's  rejoicing  that  in 
every  way  Christ  was  preached,  whether  from 
the  best  motives  or  not  (pmi.  i:i8). — The  rich 
lesson  of  this  incident  is  still  too  far  from  hav- 
ing been  learned.  It  is  the  lesson  of  charity 
and  mutual  recognition.  Jesus  expressly  told 
his  followers  to  recognize  as  their  brother  the 
man  who  was  doing  his  work,  though  he  might 
not  follow  with  them  or  do  it  in  their  way  All 
exclusive  sectarianism,  as  if  one's  own  sect  were 
the  whole  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  all  exclusive 
feeling,  as  if  one's  own  way  of  following  Jesus 
were  the  only  way  that  he  could  accept,  are  here 
not  only  forbidden,  but  ruled  out  alike  by  com- 
mon sense  and  Christian  sentiment.  We  can 
have  our  strong  conviction  that  our  way  of  fol- 
lowing Christ  is  the  best,  just  as  the  apostles  may 
have  been  sure  that  it  was  better  then  to  journey 
with  him  than  to  go  out  alone.  But  he  calls  our 
attention,  as  he  called  theirs,  away  from  the 
points  on  which  we  might  condemn  our  fel- 
low-laborers to  the  points  in  which  we  can  rec- 
ognize them  and  esteem  them  as  brethren. — 
The  saying  in  Matt.  12  :  30,  "  He  that  is  not 
with  me  is  against  me,  and  he  that  gathereth 
not  with  me  scattereth  abroad,"  is  the  comple- 
ment of  this,  not  the  contradiction.  There, 
also,  the  test  is  practical,  and  he  who  is  not 
doing  the  work  of  Christ  is  the  one  who  has  no 
place  in  his  company. — There  is  no  indication 
that  Jesus  had  ever  seen  this  man,  or  that  his 
remark  was  framed  with  sjiedal  reference  to  any 
peculiarities  of  his  case.  In  fact,  the  remark  is 
general,  there  is  no  man,  etc. 


Cii.  IX.] 


MARK. 


139 


41  For"  whosoever  shall  give  you  a  cup  of  cold  water    41  For  whosoever  shall  give  you  a  cup  of  water  to  drink, 


to  drink   in  my   name,  because  ye  helon^  to  Christ, 
verily  I  say  unto  you,  ho  sliall  not  lose  his  reward. 

42  And  whiisoev'er  shall  odend''  one  of  these,  little 
ones  that  helieve  in  me,  it  is  bettor  for  him  that  a 
millstone  were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  he  were 
cast  into  the  sea. 


because  ye  arc  Christ's,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  he 
42  shall  in  no  wise  lose  his  reward.  And  whosoever 
shall  cause  one  of  these  little  ones  that  lielieve  -on 
me  to  stumble,  it  were  better  for  him  if  -'a  great 
millstone  were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  he  were 


a  Mutt.  10  :  4'2 ;  ia  :  10 5  Matt.  18  :  6  :  Luke  17  : 


— 1  Or.  in  name  that  ye  are U  Muoy  aucluut  ; 

■iUatone  turned  by  an  asa. 


41.  Here  Jesus  grounds  the  preceding  in- 
struction in  tlio  greatness  of  himself  and  his  mis- 
sion. So  great  a  thing  is  it  to  belong  to  him  that 
from  this  relation  the  smallest  acts  obtain  a  new 
and  stiri>a.-<sing  signiticance.  Whosoever  shall 
give  yoii  a  cup  of  cold  water  to  drink  in 
my  name — /.  c.  because  of  my  name,  wiiich 
you  bear,  because  ye  belong  to  Christ,  or, 
with  the  revisers,  "  Ijecau.se' ye  are  Christ's." 
Here  is  the  reason.  This  is  a  most  significant 
and  instructive  word  as  useil  after  the  confes- 
sion made  by  Peter  in  behalf  of  his  fellow-dis- 
ciples— significant  as  a  j)robable  hint  of  the  kind 
of  remark  that  abounded  in  his  private  dis- 
course with  them  after  that  confession.  He 
was  laboring  to  make  them  know  that  he  must 
die  and  they  must  sulfer ;  but  along  with  this 
must  certainly  have  gone  much  instruction  re- 
specting their  own  position  as  his  friends,  and 
the  dignity  that  really  belonged  to  them  in 
spite  of  all  the  suffering  and  disgrace.  "Ye 
are  Christ's,"  the  very  language  of  Paul  (i  Cor. 
3 :  23).  It  was  the  charter  of  greatness  :  none  in 
the  world  were  like  them  in  honor,  and  what 
was  done  to  them  as  the  representatives  of  him 
and  Ills  kingdom  had  a  greatness  of  meaning 
and  value.  "  Because  ye  are  Christ's "  the 
smallest  service  to  you  shall  be  accounted  great, 
and  shall  not  fail  of  its  reward  in  the  Messianic 
kingdom.  But,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  any 
service  that  you  may  render  to  any  true  be- 
liever, even  though  he  follow  not  with  you,  is 
equally  great  and  certain  of  reward.  In  Matt. 
10  :  42,  "  Whosoever  shall  give  to  drink  to  one 
of  these  little  ones,"  whether  apostle  or  solitary 
exorcist,  "shall  not  lose  his  reward."  Who- 
ever receives  any  of  the  little  ones  receives  the 
Lord  :  Matt.  25  :  40,  "  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done 
it  tinto  one  of  the  least  of  these  my  brethren, 
ye  have  done  it  unto  me;"  and  the  reward  is 
indicated  in  the  great  invitation  of  the  King, 
"  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father."  Such,  dis- 
tinctly, is  our  Lord's  teaching.  Not  that  the 
reward  is  ])ayment  for  merit,  but  that  tlie  re- 
ception of  the  Lord  in  his  humble  servants  ha-s 
its  fitting  end  in  his  glory.  Thus,  by  implica- 
tion, the  man  who  followed  not  with  them  wa.s 
raised  to  a  level  with  tlie  apostles  as  one  who 


was  to  be  served  by  all  the  brethren.  How  cheer- 
ing is  this  exaltation  of  little  services,  and  yet  how 
exacting!  since  the  decisive  element  is  removed 
from  the  magnitude  of  the  service  to  the  motive 
of  the  heart  in  its  relation  to  Christ.  It  is  easier 
to  do  great  works  than  good  works. 

42.  On  the  other  hand,  as  it  is  a  great  thing 
to  serve  one  of  these  little  ones,  so  it  is  a 
great  thing  and  a  terrible  to  cause  one  of  them 
to  stumble.  Here  they  are  called  exi>ressly 
these  little  ones  that  believe.  To  otfend 
such  a  one,  or  cause  him  to  stumble,  is  to  lead 
hiin  into  sin  or  to  prevent  him  from  prosecuting 
the  Christian  life  and  work.  The  rebtiking  of 
the  solitary  miracle-worker  might  not  result  in 
so  great  an  evil  as  that ;  yet  it  might ;  and  it  cer- 
tainly would  tend  toward  that  evil.  The  man 
might  be  tempted  to  give  up  his  faith  when  the 
very  apostles  of  Jesus  said  to  him,  "Thou  hast 
no  part  in  him."  As  for  the  genuine  completed 
act  of  causing  such  a  soul  to  sin,  its  enormity  is 
mea.sured  by  the  dignity  that  has  lieen  put  ujion 
the  soul,  which  "  is  Christ's." — To  the  commit- 
ting of  such  an  act  death  were  jireferable ;  and 
death  is  solemnly  described — death  l)y  drown- 
ing, with  a  weight  anmnd  the  neck.  The  mill- 
stone here  is  not  the  .stone  of  the  ordinary 
hand-mill,  which  was  of  moderate  size  and 
weight,  but  the  stone  of  the  larger  nn'll  that 
was  turned  by  beasts  of  burden  ;  literally,  an 
ass-mill  stone.  Drowning  by  the  use  of  a  heavy 
weight  was  not  a  Jewish  jiunishment,  but  it  was 
known  among  the  (Jreeks,  Romans,  Syrians,  and 
Phtenicians.  It  was  infiicted  by  order  of  the 
Roman  emperors  in  certain  cases  of  infamy, 
and  is  said  by  Jerome  to  have  been  inflicte<l  in 
Galilee.  Plumptre  suggests  that  it  may  have 
been  witnessed  there  in  the  insurrection  of 
Judtis  of  Galilee,  and  so  may  have  had  a  .special 
fascination  of  terror  in  our  Lord's  time.  The 
.lews,  with  their  fondness  for  paying  funeral 
honors  to  the  dead,  may  well  have  had  a  great 
horror  of  it.  This  picture  of  appalling  death 
is  the  one  that  Jesus  selected  to  illustrate  the 
evil  of  causing  a  believing  soul  to  stumble. 

43-48.  If  occasions  of  sin  to  those  who  be- 
lieve on  Jesus  and  "  are  Christ's  "  are  .so  serious, 
it  follows  that  each  believer  must  guard  against 


140 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IX. 


43  And"  if  thy  hand  offend  thee,  cut  it  off:  it  is  better 
for  thee  to  enter  into  life  maimed,  than,  having  two 
hands,  to  go  into  hell,  into  the  lire  that  never  shall  be 
quenched ; 

44  Where*  their  vrorm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not 
quenched. 

45  And  if  thy  foot  offend  thee,  cut  it  off:  it  is  better 
for  thee  to  enter  halt  into  life,  than,  having  two  feet, 
to  be  cast  into  hell,  into  the  fire  that  never  shall  be 
quenched ; 

46  Where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not 
quenched. 

47  And  if  thine  eye  offend  thee,  pluck  it  out:  it  is 
better  for  thee  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  with 
one  eye,  than  having  two  eyes,  to  be  cast  into  hell-fire ; 

4S  Where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire<^  is  not 
quenched. 


43  cast  into  the  sea.  And  if  thy  hand  cause  thee  to 
stumble,  cut  it  off:  it  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into 
life  maimed,  rather  than  having  thy  two  hands  to 

45  go  into  'hell,  into  the  unquenchable  fire.-  And  if 
thy  foot  cause  thee  to  stumble,  cut  it  oti':  it  is  good 
for  thee  to  enter  into  life  halt,  rather  than  having 

47  thy  two  feet  to  be  cast  into  'hell.  And  if  thine  eye 
cause  thee  to  stumble,  cast  it  out :  it  is  good  for  thee 
to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  with  one  eye,  rather 

48  than  havingtwoeyestobecastinto'hellj  where  their 


(Deut.  1.1:6;  Matt.  5  :  29....5  Isa.  66  :  24  ;  Rev.  14  :  11... 
are  ideutical  with  ver.  48)  : 


•  c  ver.  44.  46  ;  l.uke  16  :  24. 1  Gr.  Gehenna. 

re  omitted  b}'  the  best  aucieut  authorities. 


..2  Ver.  44  and  46  (which 


them  in  his  own  behalf,  as  well  as  in  behalf  of 
his  brethren.  There  is  danger  not  only  that 
some  one  outside  will  allow  himself  to  cause 
them,  but  that  they  will  spring  up  within  the 
soul  by  means  of  something  that  is  important 
and  precious  to  the  man  himself  It  is  not  now, 
"  If  thy  brotlier  offend  thee,"  but  if  thy  hand 
offend  thee,  or  thy  foot,  or  thine  eye — if 
any  part  or  property  of  thyself  lead  thee  into 
sin  or  prevent  thee  from  prosecl^ting  the  Chris- 
tian life  and  work.  These  three  cases  are  now 
treated  with  the  solemn  emphasis  of  repetition, 
and  the  command  is,  cut  oif  the  hand,  cut  off 
the  foot,  pluck  out  the  eye,  that  is  the  occasion 
of  sin  and  apostasy.— The  reason  given  for  tlie 
command  is  that  it  is  better  to  enter  into 
life  (into  the  kingdom  of  God,  verse  47)  maim- 
ed, or  lame,  or  blind,  than,  being  in  possession 
of  all  that  is  natural  to  man,  to  be  cast  into 
hell. — Are  these  commands  of  self-mutilation 
to  be  taken  literally  ?  By  no  means.  No  one 
who  had  entered  at  all  into  the  spirit  of  Christ's 
teaching  could  possibly  understand  him  to  ad- 
vise literal  self-injury.  According  to  tlie  prin- 
ciple of  Mark  7  :  18,  19,  dependence  upon  self- 
mutilation  for  the  avoidance  of  sin  would  rank 
witli  dependence  upon  classification  of  food  for 
purity.  The  reason  that  was  given  for  that  case 
perfectly  covers  this  :  "  It  cannot  defile,  because 
it  entereth  not  into  the  heart" — i.e.  anytliing 
that  reaches  and  affects  merely  the  body  fails  to 
reacli  the  scat  of  sin.  Sin  dwells  in  the  heart, 
not  in  tlie  hand,  the  foot,  or  the  eye  ;  it  is  spirit- 
ual, not  physical,  in  its  nature;  and  its  physical 
manifestations  are  merely  like  the  foliage  upon 
the  tree,  which  might  fall  off  and  leave  the  life 
of  tlie  tree  unchanged.  Self-mutilation  has 
sometimes  been  tried  as  a  remedy  for  sin,  and 
less  radical  ascetic  practices  have  constantly 
been  put  to  the  test;  but  it  has  always  been 
found  that  the  great  .ikandnlon  ("cause  of  of- 
fence"), the  heart,  remained.     Not  self-mutila- 


tion, but  self-conquest,  is  the  Christian  ideal 

(l  Cor.  9  :  24-27  ;  Rom.  6:19:  Col.  3  :  1-U  ).      The  language 

is  founded  upon  the  supposition  of  an  extreme 
case :  if  the  hand,  the  foot,  or  the  eye  were  found 
to  be  "  the  incurable,  incorrigible  catise  or  occa- 
sion of  transgression  against  God,"  even  this 
might  better  be  sacrificed  than  that  the  sin 
sliould  go  on.  While  this  will  not  happen  in 
any  such  way  that  the  forfeiting  of  the  l>odily 
organs  would  cure  the  sin,  still  the  bodily  or- 
gans are  the  most  convenient  illustrations  of 
that  which  is  nearest  and  most  indisj)cnsable 
to  man,  and  hence  are  well  adapted  to  our  Sav- 
iour's purpose.  His  meaning  is,  "Sacrifice 
whatever  is  nearest,  dearest,  most  precious,  or 
most  necessary,  to  thyself  if  the  sacrifice  is  es- 
sential to  the  avoiding  of  sin  and  the  prosecu- 
tion of  the  holy  life.  Better  endure  the  sacri- 
fice than,  by  avoiding  it,  lose  thyself  Cast  thy 
hand  rather  than  thy  whole  self  to  the  enemy." 
The  thought  is  repeated  from  Matt.  5  :  29,  30, 
where  it  has  its  fitting  place  in  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount.  The  passage  is  not  less  exacting 
than  it  would  be  if  its  language  were  to  be 
taken  literally.  The  self-denial  to  which  it 
calls  otir  attention  is  of  the  extrcmest  kind, 
and  our  Saviour  assures  us  that  such  self-denial 
may  in  some  cases  be  absolutely  essential  to  sal- 
vation. There  is  no  difficulty  in  seeing  that  he 
is  right,  for  sinful  practices  and  situations  do 
often  become  as  hard  to  forsake  and  sacrifice  as 
a  part  of  one's  self. 

As  to  the  text  of  this  passage,  according  to 
the  best  manuscript  evidence,  verses  44  and  4() 
should  be  omitted;  so  that  the  words  Where 
their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not 
quenched  occur  only  once,  at  verse  48.  On 
the  same  evidence,  tlie  last  clause  of  verse  45, 
into  the  fire  that  never  shall  be  quenched, 
should  also  be  omitted,  having  been  repeated 
from  verse  43;  and  so  should  the  word  fire,  at 
the  end  of  verse  47.     Nothing  is  omitted  in  tlie 


Ch.  IX.] 


MARK. 


141 


best  text  Ijut  the  repetitions.  The  presence  of 
these  repetitions  is  eiisily  accounted  for  by  the 
terrible  solemnity  of  tlie  passage,  and  especially 
by  the  repetition  of  the  (jne  coniniand,  slightly 
varied,  in  verses  43,  45,  and  47.  In  sncli  a  con- 
nection copyists  ea.sily  took  vei-se  48  as  intended 
for  a  sort  of  refrain,  and  inserted  it  after  each 
repetition  of  the  command.  Verse  48  is  quoted 
word  for  word,  except  as  to  the  tenses  and  the 
introductory  connective,  from  the  Septuagint 
of  Isa.  6(5  :  24. 

Tiic  word  Gehenna  occurs  thrice  here,  and 
here  alone  in  Mark.     It  is  found  seven  times 

in    Matthew  (S  :  22,  29,  30  ;  10  :  28  ;  18  :  9 ;  23  :  15,  .33),    OllCC 

in  Luke  (12: 5),  and  once  in  the  Epistle  of  James 
(3 : 6).  In  tiie  common  English  version  it  is 
always  translated  "  liell,"  and  so  is  tlie  entirely 
dissimilar  word  Jlailcx,  which  corresponds  to 
the  Shc(jl.  of  the  Olil  Testament.  Hade.s,  or 
Hheol,  is  sim])ly  the  place  of  the  dejjarted,  and 
there  is  no  word  in  the  Old  Testament  that 
corrcspoiiils  to  Gehenna  in  its  New-Testament 
sense.  The  confounding  of  two  so  di.ssimilar 
words  in  translation,  happily  avoided  in  the 
Revised  New  Testament,  has  led  to  much  con- 
fusion and  misunderstanding,  especially  in  such 
passages  as  Matt.  IG  :  18 ;  Luke  10  :  23 ;  Acts 
2  :  27 ;  Rev.  20  :  13,  14.  The  word  Gehenna 
is  the  Hebrew  word  Ge-Hinnom,  "Valley  of 
Ilinnom."  This  (or  sometimes  "the  Valley 
of  tlie  son,"  or  of  the  sons,  "of  Hinnom") 
was  the  name  of  the  narrow  gorge  or  ravine 
tliat  lay  (Jii  tlie  south  of  Jerusalem.  The  or- 
igin of  the  name  is  uncertain.  "Hinnom"  is 
commonly  taken  to  be  the  name  of  some  un- 
known man  of  early  times ;  but  some,  as  Grimm 
(X.  T.  Lexicon),  make  it  to  be  the  Chaldee  word 
Nihom,  "lamentation,"  transposed.  Solomon 
erected  a  place  of  worship  for  Molech  on  the 
hill  that  overlooked  it  {1  Kings  11 : 7),  and  the 
valley  itself  wa.s  afterward  used  as  the  place  of 
human  sacrifice  by  tire  to  the  same  horrid  god 
(2  Kiiigsi  16:3;  2  chron. 33:6),  evcu  the  kiiigs  Some- 
times sacrilicing  their  children  there.  In  the 
great  reformation  of  Josiah,  the  la.st  godly 
king,  the  place  wa.s  deliberately  defiled  by  the 
king's  order  in  the  interest  of  godliness;  he 
rendi'red  it  ceremonially  unclean  by  placing 
human  bones  tiiere,  that  the  peoj>le  might  ab- 
hor and  avoid  a  place  so  crowded  with  horri- 
ble and  yet  fa.scinating  associations  (2  Kiogs  23 :  10). 
From  that  time  it  became  the  receptacle  ior 
the  refuse  of  the  city,  the  stream  that  flywed 
through  it  to  join  the  Kedron  jjrobably  being 
relied  upon  to  carry  away  the  li(juid  sewage. 
It  has  often  been  atfirmed  that  cleansing  fires 
were  constantly  burning  there;  but  the  author- 


ities for  the  statement  are  insufficient,  although 
some  scriptural  allusions  would  be  most  easily 
explained  by  such  a  fact.  The  symbolic  use 
of  the  name  Gehenna  does  not  appciir  in  the 
Old  Testament;  but  before  the  time  of  Christ 
the  place,  so  full  (jf  all  olfensiveness  and  hope- 
lessness, had  become  the  type  of  the  state  in 
which  all  that  is  offensive  and  worthless  in 
the  sight  of  God  must  be  at  last.  So  Gehenna 
came  to  be  the  name  of  the  place  or  state  of 
future  punishment — a  sense  which  it  bears 
wherever  it  is  found  in  the  New  Testament, 
except  in  Matt.  23  :  15  and  James  3  :  (5,  where 
it  denotes  the  abode  of  evil  rather  than  merely 
the  place  of  punishment. 

Verse  48  is  to  be  understood  in  the  light  of 
the  connection  in  Isaiah  from  which  it  is  taken. 
In  Isa.  G6  :  24  it  is  represented  that  the  true 
worshijipers  of  God  are  to  assemble  in  the  tem- 
ple, where  they  can  look  out  upon  the  dead 
bodies  of  the  rebellious  in  Israel,  which  are  in 
the  place  of  refuse  and  rejection,  where  their 
worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not 
quenched.  That  pro])bccy  points  forward 
to  the  time  when  the  kingdom  of  Christ  shall 
have  been  established,  and  those  who  have 
entered  it  shall  know  how  terrible  is  the  fate 
of  those  who  liave  rejected  it  and  have  been 
themselves  rejected.  The  imagery  is  borrowed 
from  the  Valley  of  Hinnom,  familiar  to  the 
first  hearers,  and  is  entirely  physical.  The 
fact  represented  is  the  njection,  from  the  king- 
dom of  God,  of  men  who  have  rejected  that 
kingdom.  Probably  the  first  api)lication  of 
Isaiah's  prophecy  was  to  the  generation  to 
which  our  Saviour  spoke,  and  which  rejected 
him.  Any  man  of  tliat  generation,  Je.*<us  would 
say,  if  he  preferred  hand,  foot,  or  eye  to  the 
Messianic  godliness,  might  expect  to  find  him- 
self among  those  who  were  utterly  rejected 
from  the  Messianic  kingdom.  With  our  Lonl, 
to  enter  into  life  and  to  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  (iod  is  not  merely  to  enter  the 
blessedness  f>f  the  future  state.  It  is  expressly 
sometliing  else :  it  is  to  enter  into  the  character 
and  the  life  that  constitute  the  kingdom.  (See 
John  3:5;  17  :  3 ;  Luke  10  :  27,  28,  etc.)  Ac- 
cordingly, the  opposite  state  is  not  exclusively 
the  mi.serj'  of  tiie  future  existence:  it  is  pri- 
marily the  state  of  those  who,  by  rejecting 
him,  have  failed  to  enter  into  life  and  into  the 
kingdom,  and  who,  in.stead  of  dwelling  in  the 
spiritual  Jerusalem,  are  cast  into  the  Gehenna 
outside.  The  essential  quality  of  this  state 
will  inevitably  extend,  if  they  do  not  repent, 
to  an  endless  future;  for  the  misery  of  their 
state  has  in  it  a  self-perpetuating  quality,  from 


142 


MARK. 


[Ch.  IX. 


49  For  every  one  shall  be  salted  with  fire,  and  every 
sacrifice"  shall  be  salted  with  salt. 

5U  ."-alt  /.s  good :  but  if  the  salt'  have  lost  his  saltness, 
wherewith  will  ye  season  it?  Have"^  salt  in  yourselves, 
and  have''  peace  one  with  another. 


49  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched.     For 

5U  every  one  shall  i)e  salted  with  fire'.    8alt  is  good :  but 

if  the  salt  have  lost  its  saltness,  wherewith  will  ye 

season  it?    Have  salt  in  yourselves,  and  be  at  peace 

one  with  another. 


oLev.  2:13;  Ezek.  43:  24.... 6  Matt.  5:13;  Luke  14  :  34. 
ancient  authorities  add  and  every  i 


.c  Col.  4  :6....dPs.  34:14;  2  Cor.  13:  11 
'.rifiCG  shall  be  salted  with  salt.     See  Lev.  J 


-1  Many 


the  nature  of  their  sinfulness. — We  are  not  jus- 
tified in  drawing  for  ourselves  pictures  of  future 
punishment  from  the  sttggestions  of  this  im- 
agery. Indeed,  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  of 
the  scriptural  miagery  was  intended  to  suggest 
to  us  pictures,  properly  so  called,  of  future  mis- 
ery. That  misery  will  be  spiritual  and  moral, 
and  the  physical  images  tell  us  of  its  reality, 
but  cannot  represent  its  character.  Of  tlie 
scene  and  scenery  of  future  misery  we  know 
absolutely  nothing.  The  undying  worm  has 
commonly  been  taken  to  rejaresent  the  cease- 
less gnawing  of  conscience;  and  the  incxtin- 
gui.shable  fire,  the  unalterable  righteousness  of 
God.  These  are  inevitable  elements  in  the  fu- 
ture misery,  but  whether  our  Saviour  meant 
now  to  suggest  them  is  at  least  open  to  doubt. 
49.  A  saying  without  parallel,  and  one  of 
the  most  difficult  in  the  Gospels.  Meyer,  who 
cites  fourteen  different  interpretations  besides 
giving  his  own,  thinks  it  may  have  been  utter- 
ed in  a  connection  that  gave  light  upon  it,  but 
has  not  been  preserved.  Tischendorf,  following 
substantially  the  authorities  that  he  is  accus- 
tomed to  follow  in  cases  of  doubt,  omits  the 
words  and  every  sacrifice  shall  be  salted 
with  salt,  which  he  tliinks  have  crept  into 
the  manuscripts  in  which  they  are  found,  by 
way  of  comment,  from  the  Septuagint  of  Lev. 
2  :  13.  The  revisers  also  omit  them.  But  some 
manuscripts  in  turn  omit  the  words  For  every- 
one shall  be  salted  with  fire,  and  apparent- 
ly the  great  obscurity  of  the  passage  has  had  to 
do  with  the  corrupting  of  the  text.  Accepting 
the  whole  as  genuine,  Meyer  finds  the  key  to 
the  passage  in  the  context  and  in  the  allusion 
to  Lev.  2  :  13.  Every  one  is  ever>'  one  of  those 
just  mentioned,  who  shall  suffer  in  Gehenna. 
The  salt  is  the  salt  of  the  covenant  of  God, 
with  which  every  sacrifice  must  be  offered 
(Lev.  2:13),  the  Symbol  of  the  perpetuity  of  the 
covenant  relation  with  Jehovah ;  which  cov- 
enant relation  has  its  terrible  side  to  the  rebel- 
lious and  its  promise  of  enlightenment  and 
higher  wisdom  to  the  pious.  The  fire  is  the 
fire  of  Gehenna.  The  sacrifice  is  the  pious 
and  obedient  soul  (as  in  Rom.  12  :  1),  who  is  a 
pure  sacrifice,  spiritually,  to  God.  Thus  the 
verse  means,  "  Justly  do  I  speak  of  their  fire ; 
for  every  one  who  goes  away  into  Gehenna  will 


still  receive,  even  in  its  unextinguished  fire,  the 
proof  of  the  perpetuity  of  Jehovah's  covenant, 
that  covenant  asserting  itself  in  his  case  as  a 
covenant  of  wrath  upon  the  rebellious ;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  every  one  who,  by  piety 
and  obedience,  becomes  a  true  sacrifice  to  G(id 
shall  receive  the  proof  of  the  i^erpetuity  of  his 
covenant  on  its  merciful  side  by  possessing  its 
gifts  of  enlightenment  and  higher  wisdom  in 
the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah."  The  ordinary 
interpretations  are  unsatisfactoiy  because  they 
fail  to  give  a  consistent  meaning  throughout 
the  i3assage  to  fire  and  to  salt.  Bitt  Meyer 
finds  in  the  passage  itself,  thus  viewed,  a  reason 
for  giving  a  twofold  application  (though  not  a 
double  meaning)  to  salt ;  and  fire  he  explains 
strictly  according  to  the  context.  No  other  in- 
terpretation seems  so  satisfactory  as  this.  In 
this  view,  it  was  precisely  because  of  the  unal- 
terable relation  of  the  Jew  to  Jehovah  that  he 
must  suffer,  and  even  perish,  if  he  rejected  the 
kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  and,  in  the  broader 
field,  it  is  precisely  because  of  the  eternal  and 
necessary  relation  of  man  to  God  that  he  must 
suffer  without  end  if  he  finally  rejects  God  from 
being  his  God. 

50.  The  fir.st  sentence  is  parallel  to  Luke  14  : 
34,  and  in  part  to  Matt.  5  :  13.  Salt  is  good. 
The  enlightenment,  the  wisdom,  the  character 
of  the  kingdom,  is  kaloti,  "  noble,"  "excellent:" 
the  fulfilment  of  the  covenant  on  its  merciful 
side  gives  a  noble  character  to  man,  and  one 
that  he  must  preserve,  for  his  own  sake  and  for 
that  of  the  world.  Jesus  reminds  his  disciples, 
perhaps  by  the  tacit  allusion  to  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  that  they  have  this  salt  and  are  as 
a  salt  to  the  world.  But  what  if  salt  were  spoil- 
ed? How  could  its  virtue  be  restored?  They 
must  be  careful  not  to  lose  the  character  of  the 
kingdom.— Concerning  the  salt  losing  its  salt- 
ness, see  Thomson,  The  Land  and  the  Book.  2. 
43,  44.  The  salt  of  Palestine  is  not  made  from 
clean  salt  water,  but  from  marshes  along  the 
sea,  and  is  so  mixed  with  impurities  as  not  to 
keep  its  quality  very  well.  Dr.  Thomson  has 
oftcQ  seen  it  when  it  had  become  utterly  worth- 
less, without  taste  and  without  value:  "It  is 
not  only  good  for  nothing  itself,  but  it  actually 
destroys  all  fertility  wherever  it  is  thrown ;  and 
this  is  the  reason  why  it  is  cast  into  the  street." 


Ch.  X.] 


MARK. 


143 


CHAPTER    X. 


AND"  he  arose  from  thence,  and  cometh  into  the 
coasts  of  .hulea,  by  the  farther  side  of  Jordan: 
aii>i  the  i)eoi)le  resort  unto  him  again;  and,  as  he  was 
wont,  lie  taught  them  again. 

2  *i  And  the  i'harisees  came  to  him,  and  asked  him,  Is 
it  lawful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife '!  tempting  him. 


1  And  he  arose  from  thence,  and  cometh  into  the 
borders  of  Judaea  and  beyond  Jordan:  and  multi- 
tudes come  together  unto  him  again ;  and,  as  he  was 

2  wont,  he  taught  them  again.  And  there  came  unto 
him  i'harisees,  and  usl^ecl  him.  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man 


a  Matt.  19  : 1 ;  John  10  :  40. 


—With  the  last  sentence,  our  Lord  returns  to  the 
(luestion  concerning  pre-eminence  with  which 
the  conversation  began.  Have  salt  in  your- 
selves. Preserve  the  pure  character  of  tlie 
kingdom,  tlie  grace  that  comes  by  the  fultil- 
ment  of  God's  covenant.  Keep  in  yourselves 
that  which  makes  you  the  salt  of  the  earth. — 
And  have  peace  one  with  another.  Omit 
and  forget  your  strifes  for  pre-eminence ;  be  low- 
ly and  loving.  The  spirit  of  the  little  child  is 
the  spirit  of  peace.  See  1  Pet.  1  :  22,  which,  if 
not  intentionally  alluding  to  this  instruction 
of  Christ,  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  it:  "See- 
ing ye  have  purified  your  souls  by  obeying  the 
truth  through  the  Spirit  unto  unfeigned  love 
of  the  brethren,  love  one  another  with  a  pure 
heart  fervently." 

Here  ends  the  discourse  as  reported  by  Mark ; 
but  Matthew  carries  his  report  farther,  adding 
the  Lord's  words  on  the  importance  of  the  little 
ones  and  the  shepherd's  care  for  the  wandering 
sheep,  tiie  duty  of  the  offended  one  and  of  the 
church  in  the  case  of  one  who  has  done  wrong 
to  another,  (a  counsel  for  the  future,  so  far  as 
the  church  is  concerned),  and  the  duty  of 
boundless  forgiveness  of  injuries,  illustrated  by 
the  parable  of  tlie  unforgiving  servant  to  whom 
mercy  was  in  turn  refused  (Matt,  is :  10-35). 


1.  LAST  RECORDED  DEPARTURE  OF 
JESUS  FROM  GALILEE,  AND  JOURNEY 
TO  JERUSALEM.  Farulld,  Matt.  19:1,2.— 
Here  .Mark  makes  a  large  omission.  The  chron- 
ological order  of  the  events  that  he  passes  by  is 
not  entirely  plain,  nor  is  it  certain  just  where, 
in  the  other  records,  his  resumption  of  the  nar- 
rative comes  in  ;  but  tlie  discu.ssion  of  these  ques- 
tions belongs  in  the  treatment  of  the  other  Gos- 
pels. The  order  adojjted  in  Gardiner's  Ilarinomj 
gives  substantially  the  ordinary  arrangement, 
and  may  be  briefly  stated  here.  After  depart- 
ing from  Galilee,  Jesus  sent  out  the  seventy  dis- 
ciples to  prepare  the  people  in  Penea  for  his 
own  intended  coming.  He  then  went  to  Jeru- 
salem to  attend  the  feast  of  tabernacles — a  fact 
mentioned  by  John  alone  (joim?).  After  the 
fciist  he  returned  to  Pera^a  and  visited  the  places 
where  the  seventy  had  prejiared  him  a  welcome. 
Through  Penea  he  journeyed  slowly  back  to- 
10 


ward  Jerusalem,  attended  by  great  multitudes. 
He  wa^s  present  in  Jeru.salem  at  the  feast  of  the 
dedication,  which  again  is  mentioned  by  John 
alone  (io:2i),  and  after  this  feast  he  went  away 
to*  the  place  where  John  at  first  baptized. 
Hence  he  was  summoned  to  Bethany  by  the 
death  of  Lazarus,  and  raised  him  from  the 
dead.  From  Bethany  he  retired  to  a  place 
called  Ei)hraim,  where  he  remained  till  the 
pilgrims  were  going  up  to  Jerusalem  for  the 
passover,  when  he  joined  them  at  a  point  far- 
ther back  than  Jericho,  and  went  on  to  Jeru- 
salem for  the  last  time. — Opinions  differ  as  to 
some  points  included  ;  for  e.xaniple,  as  to  wheth- 
er he  returned  to  Galilee  in  the  interval  be- 
tween the  feasts.  Moreover,  if  the  conjecture 
respecting  the  rich  young  man  that  will  be 
mentioned  below  were  accepted,  it  would  be 
necessary  to  suppose  a  different  order  with  ref- 
erence to  the  raising  of  Lazarus.  The  first  as- 
certainable place  ill  the  record  of  Mark  is  Jer- 
icho, to  which  Jesus  comes  at  chap.  10  :  46. 
The  events  recorded  before  that  point  in  this 
chapter  belong  in  Penea,  but  cannot  be  more 
exactly  localized.  Within  this  period  falls  tlie 
rich  group  of  instructions,  and  especially  of 
parables,  reported  by  Luke,  many  of  them  by 
Luke  alone,  between  his  clia}).  9  :  51  and  18  :  14. 
Here  belong  also  the  sharp  controversies  of 
John  7,  8  and  the  giving  of  sight  to  the  man 
who  was  born  blind  (johus).  Mark  brings  us 
again  to  the  company  of  Jesus  at  some  undeter- 
mined point  in  Penea  not  long  before  the  end 
of  the  journey.  He  was  attended  l)y  a  multi- 
tude, as  usual,  and  the  fact  that  lie  taught  them 
is  here  mentioned  as  (iie  customary  fact :  as  he 
was  wont,  he  tau|i;ht  them  again.  What 
a  mass  of  unrecorded  instruction  is  suggested 
here ! 

2-12.  INSTRUCTIONS  CONCERNING  DI- 
VORCE. Pnraflel,  :\ratt.  19  :  3-12.— Luke  1(5  : 
18  is  also  parallel  to  the  closing  words  of  this 
section.  There  are  considerable  variations  be- 
tween Matthew  and  Mark,  both  in  arrangement 
and  in  detail,  but  no  essential  differences. 

2.  The  questioners  are  the  Pharisees — 
omnipresent  tempters ! — and  the  old  jmictice  of 
trying  to  catch  him  by  questions  still  survives. 
— Is  it  lawful.    Perhaps  not  asked  in  the  nar- 


144 


MARK. 


[Ch.  X. 


3  And  he  answered  and  said  unto  them,  What  did 
Moses  command  you? 

4  And  they  said,  Moses"  suffered  to  write  a  bill  of 
divorcement,  and  to  put  her  away. 

5  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them.  For  the 
hardness  of  your  heart  he  wrote  you  this  precept : 

6  I5ut  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation  God  made* 
them  male  and  female. 

7  For"^  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and 
mother,  and  cleave  to  his  wife; 

S  And  they  twain  shall  be  one''  flesh:  so  then  they 
are  no  more  twain,  but  one  flesh. 

9  What  therefore  God  hath  joined  together,  let  not 
man  put  asunder. 


3  to  put  away  his  wife  ?  trying  him.  And  he  answered 
and  said  unto  them,  What  did  Moses  command  you? 

4  And  they  said,  Moses  suffered  to  write  a  bill  of  di- 

5  vorcement,  and  to  put  her  away.     But  Jesus  said 
unto  them.  For  your  hardness  of  heart  he  wrote 

6  you  this  commandment.     But  from  the  beginning 
of  the  creation,  Male  and   female   made   he  them. 

7  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mo- 
8ther,  'and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife;  and  the  twain 

shall  become   one  flesh :   so  that  they  are  no  more 
9  twain,  but  one  Hesh.     What  therefore  God  hath 


a  Deut.  24;  1 ;  Matt.  5:31 &  Gen.  1 :  27  :  5:2;  Mai.  2  ;  15 c  Gen.  2:24 d\  Cor.  6  :  16;  Eph.  5  :  3L 1  Some  ancient 

authorities  omit  and  shall  cleave  to  kis  wife. 


rowest  technical  sense,  as  if  calling  for  an  inter- 
pretation of  the  Mosaic  law,  but  more  generally, 
asking  the  judgment  of  the  Rabbi :  "  May  a  man 
jjut  away  his  wife?"  The  law  of  divorce  in 
Deut.  24  :  1  was  not  entirely  plain  in  the  state- 
ment of  the  admissible  grounds  of  complaint 
against  a  wife,  and  the  ambiguity  had  occasion- 
ed endless  discussion.  The  schools  of  Sliammai, 
the  stricter,  and  Hillel,  the  more  lax,  contended 
about  it,  and  the  people  were  divided.  Therefore, 
however  Jesus  might  reply,  his  answer  could 
be  trusted  to  make  him  enemies.  Moreover, 
he  was  in  the  territory  of  Herod,  under  whom 
the  Baptist  had  suffered  for  his  boldness  in  tlie 
matter  of  an  adulterous  marriage.  Matthew's 
addition,  "  for  every  cause,"  was  as  nearly  as 
possible  the  translation  of  the  current  phrase 
justified  by  the  lax  school  of  Hillel ;  and  so  the 
question  meant,  "  Is  the  lax  school  right?" 

3)  4.  His  answer  drove  them  back  to  their 
own  authorities.  The  law  under  which  all  their 
discussions  were,  aiid  ought  to  be,  conducted 
was  the  law  of  Moses,  and  what  he  said  must 
be  finst  considered.  What  did  Moses  com- 
mand you  ?  was  the  first  legitimate  question. 
But  their  answer  was  evasive.  They  stated  the 
permission  as  if  it  were  unlimited,  omitting  all 
reference  to  the  occasions  of  divorce  which  the 
law  recognized. 

5-9.  Yet  he  accepted  their  report  of  the  law, 
imperfect  as  it  was,  without  criticism.  They 
had  omitted  the  crucial  point,  the  determina- 
tion of  occasions  for  divorce,  and  so  would  he. 
They  had  spoken  of  permission  ;  of  permission 
he  would  speak.  Divorce  was  a  permitted 
thing,  and  the  permission  was  so  vague  that 
there  might  be  difficulty  in  defining  its  limits. 
It  was  ]>crmittcd,  but  why?  For  the  hard- 
ness of  your  heart  he  wrote  you  this 
precept.  The  preposition  means  "  on  account 
of,"  or  "  out  of  regard  for."  The  noun  means 
" hard-heartedness ;"  "spiritual  dulness  and  in- 
capacity ;"  "  unresponsiveness  to  God,"  amount- 
ing to  inability  to  accept  high  motives.     Moses 


wrote  you  this  jirecept,  said  Jesus  (in  Mat- 
thew, "he  suffered  you  to  put  away  j'our 
wives"),  because  you  were  not  up  to  the 
level  of  a  better  precept.  He  said  that  Moses 
wrote  tlie  precept ;  but,  according  to  their  view 
of  the  matter  and  according  to  his  (see  Mark 
7  :  13),  the  legislation  of  Moses  expressed  the 
appointment  of  God.  It  was  Jehovah  himself 
who  permitted  them  to  put  away  their  wives. — 
But  this  precept  was  not  given  because  there 
was  not  a  better  one  at  hand.  A  better  was 
provided  in  the  constitution  of  man.  From 
the  beginning  of  the  creation — from  the 
very  origin  of  thing.s — God,  tlie  Creditor,  made 
them  male  and  female.  An  exact  quota- 
tion from  Gen.  1  :  27,  Septuagint.  Verse  7  and 
half  of  verse  8  are  exactly  quoted  from  Gen. 
2  :  24,  Septuagint,  tliough  in  Mark  some  man- 
uscripts (and  Tischendorf)  omit  and  cleave 
to  his  Avife. 

This  passage  from  the  narrative  of  the  Cre- 
ation was  cited  to  show  that  the  distinction  of 
sexes  was  originally  constituted  the  ground  of 
marriage.  By  this  law  marriage  is  the  union 
of  a  male  and  a  female  of  the  human  race ;  and 
it  is  such  a  union  as  shall  form  a  new  centre  of 
life  to  both.  For  this  cause — /.  e.  because  he 
created  them  male  and  female — a  man  shall 
leave  the  parents,  into  natural  unity  with  whom 
he  was  born,  and  find  the  centre  for  a  new 
unity  in  his  union  with  a  fellow-being  of  the 
opposite  sex.  Thus  the  distinction  of  the  sexes 
was  given  as  the  foundation  of  the  family. — 
Now,  the  duration  for  which  God  intended  this 
union  may  be  inferred  from  his  own  testimony 
as  to  its  closeness  and  completeness.  This  tes- 
timony Jesus  now  quotes — and  they  twain 
shall  be  one  flesh  —  and  then  he  adds  his 
own  emphatic  restatement  of  the  fact :  so 
then  they  are  no  more  tAvain,  but  one 
flesh — that  is,  the  union  tliat  is  founded  on  the 
relation  of  the  sexes  makes  tiie  two  to  be  one 
flesh,  makes  each  to  be,  physically,  part  and 
property  of  the  other.     Marriage  has  wrought 


Ch.  X.] 


MARK. 


145 


10  And  in  the  house  his  disciples  asked  liini  again 
of  the  .same  mnUer. 

11  And  he  saith  unto  them,"  Whosoever  shall  put 
away  liis  wife,  and  marry  another,  committeth  adultery 
against  her. 

\i  And  if  a  woman  shall  put  away  her  hushand,  and 
be  married  to  another,  she  committeth  adultery. 


lOjoined  together,  let  not  man  put  asunder.  And  in 
the  house  the  disciples  asked  him  ;>gain  olthis  matter. 

11  And  he  .saith  unto  them.  Whosoever  shall  i>ut  away 
his  wife,  and  marry  another,  committeth  adultery 

12  against  her:  and  if  she  lier.self  sliall  put  away  her 
husband,  and  marry  another,  she  committeth  "adul- 
tery. 


a  Matt.  b:3-l;  19  :  9 ;  Luke  16  :  18 ;  Rom.  7  :  3 ;  I  Cor.  7  :  10,  U. 


an  actual  unity  which  is  not  to  be  broi^en.  It 
is  the  union  of  one  man  and  one  woman,  and 
the  hk'iiding  of  hfe  in  sexual  union  establishe.s 
between  that  one  man  and  tliat  one  woman  a 
real  unity.  By  establisliing  such  a  relation  the 
Creator  showed  his  intention  that  a  union  thus 
formed  should  be  irrevocable  and  inviolable,  to 
be  legitimately  tenuinated  only  by  death. 

Ill  vei-se  9  is  given  the  better  precept  that 
springs  from  this  original  order.  The  verb  is 
in  the  aorist,  not  in  the  perfect ;  and  the  refer- 
ence is  not  to  special  cases  in  which  God  hath 
joined  together  two  given  individuals,  but 
to  the  original  constitution  of  tlie  race,  in  estab- 
lishing which  he  joined  together  in  perma- 
nent unity  every  i)air  who  should  ever  come 
together  in  the  union  of  sex  with  sex. — What 
therefore  God  hath  joined  together,  let 
not  man  put  asunder.  That  one  tlesh  or  one 
body  (si'c  1  (/or.  G  :  lU,  wliere  Paul  expressly 
recognizes  the  truth  that  physical  union  estab- 
lishes true  and  iiermanent  unity)  which  has 
been  formed  in  accordance  with  God's  appoint- 
ment in  the  creation  of  man,  let  not  man  put 
asunder. — Note  the  contrast  between  God  and 
man  :  man  may  not  break  what  God  has  made. 
Man  may  break  this  unity,  cither  by  personal 
unfaithfulness  to  the  obligation  of  marriage 
or  by  contradictory  enactments  permitting  dis- 
solutions that  God  does  not  permit.  Of  the 
possiiile  dissolution,  for  one  cause,  he  speaks 
below. 

This  law  of  exclusive  and  permanent  union 
was  the  original  law  of  marriage  ;  and  this  law 
Jesus  reaffirms.  But  a  lower  law  was  given  in 
that  legislation  which  Jesus  distinctly  recog- 
nized ;us  the  work  of  (iod.  Now,  Jesus  declares 
that  that  law  was  given  because  of  the  inca- 
pat'ity  of  men  for  this.  He  thus  announces  the 
imperfection  of  tiie  Mo.saic  law — not  only  its 
iiicoMii)letene.ss,  but  its  imperfection — and  as- 
serts also  its  educational  purpose.  It  wa.s 
meant  to  train  men  for  a  better  life  than  they 
could  then  accept.  Accordingly,  there  was  in 
the  law  a  certain  amount  of  what  is  called  ac- 
commodation. "(Jod  often  spe^iks  and  gives 
law,  not  as  lie  liimself  is  able  to  do,  but  as  we 
areable  to  he^ir  "  ( Chriimatom,  on  Ps.  95) — a  sound 
principle,  but  alwavs  to  be  accompanied  by  this : 
10 


"  When  God  thus  speaks  and  gives  law,  it  is  in 
order  that  he  may  make  us  able  to  hear  all  that 
he  is  able  to  say  to  us."  We  need  have  no  dif- 
liculty  in  admitting  that  God  has  dealt  in  rudi- 
mentary instruction,  and,  so  far,  in  inferior  in- 
struction, if  only  we  keep  steadily  in  view  his 
purpose  of  moral  education  for  men. 

10-12.  Mark  alone  tells  of  the  later  inquiry 
of  the  di.scii)les.  In  Matthew  the  address  to  the 
Pharisees  is  continued,  with  the  solemn  a.sser- 
tion  that  he  who  puts  away  his  wife,  except  for 
fornication,  and  marries  another  coiiunits  adul- 
tery. In  Mark  "  except  for  fornication "  is 
omitted ;  but  it  is  sufficiently  implied.  The 
statement  in  both  Gosjjels  is  that  a  man  is 
i  charged  with  adultcrj'  when  he  enters  into  a 
new  sexual  union  while  the  tirst  is  still  un- 
broken— i.  e.  when  he  breaks  the  exclusive 
unity  of  flesh  with  his  wife  by  an  act  of  union 
with  another.  Of  course  an  equal  union  of 
sexes  can  be  broken  by  either  member;  and  so 
the  "  except  for  fornication  "  is  imi)lied  clearly 
enough  in  principle  in  Mark.  Verse  12,  indeecl, 
distinctly  enforces  the  principle  of  equal  re- 
sponsibility. The  custom  to  which  it  alludes, 
of  the  wife  i)Utting  away  the  hii.sband,  was  a 
custom,  not  of  Jews,  but  of  Romans  and  of 
other  Gentiles.  Po.ssibly  Jesus  saw  tiiat  there 
was  danger,  under  Roman  influence,  of  its 
coming  in  among  the  Jews.  —  Here,  in  verses 
II,  12,  is  our  Lord's  own  answer  to  the  original 
question,  whether  a  man  might  put  away  his 
wife.  It  is,  "  No,  unless  she  h:us  already  broken 
her  unity  with  him."  Sexual  unfaithfulness 
forfeits  the  bond,  but  nothing  else  does. 

The  teaching  of  this  pa.ssage  is  strong  and 
conclusive  for  all  who  acknowledge  the  au- 
thority of  Jesus  Christ.  The  inviolability  of 
marriage  is  grounded,  not  in  any  principles  of 
exi)cdiency  or  advantage,  right  as  these  might 
be,  but  in  Its  correspondence  to  the  constitution 
of  man  as  male  and  female.  The  sexual  ele- 
ment in  marriage  makes  of  the  two  one  flesh — 
(.  e.  it  was  meant  that  sexual  union  shoulil  be 
inseparable  from  jiermanent  personal  unity — 
and  only  by  sexual  unfaitlifulness  can  the 
unity,  once  established,  be  broken.  This  is  not 
to  attirm  that  sexual  unfaithfulness  is  neces- 
sarily more  guilty  than  any  other  sin — a  life- 


146 


MARK. 


[Ch.  X. 


13  IT  And"  they  brought  young  children  to  him,  that 
he  should  touch  them :  and  his  disciples  rebuked  those 
that  brought  i/iein. 

14  But  when  Jesus  saw  i/,  he  was  much''  displeased, 
and  said  unto  them.  Suiter  the  little  children  to  come 
unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  lor  of  such  is  tlie  king- 
dom of  God.*^ 

l.>  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Whosoever  shall  not  receive 
the  kingdom  of  God  as"  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter 
therein. 


13  And  they  were  bringing  unto  him  little  children, 
that  he  should  touch  them :   and  the  disciples  re- 

14  buked  them.  But  when  Jesus  saw  it,  he  was  moved 
with  indignation,  and  said  unto  them,  >-utier  the 
little  children  to  come  unto  me;  forbid  them  not: 

15  for  to  such  belongeth  the  kingdom  of  (  od.  N  erily  I 
say  unto  you,  \s  hosoever  shall  not  recei\e  the  king- 
dom of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  in  no  wise 


a  Matt.  19  :  1.S  ;  Luke  18:  15.... 6  Eph.  i  :  26.... c  Matt.  18  :  10 ;  1  Cor.  U  :  20 ;  1  Pet.  2:2;  Rev.  14  :  5.- 


,  Or,  of  such  is 


long  course  of  drunkenness  and  abuse  may  be 
as  guilty — but  the  sexmil  relation  is  the  ground- 
work of  the  family,  and  its  jiurity  is  absolutely 
essential  to  the  physical  and  moral  welfare  of 
mankind.  With  good  reason,  therefore,  God 
has  made  faithfulness  in  this  relation  the  de- 
termining element  in  the  perpetuity  of  mar- 
riage. To  this  divine  appointment  human  laws 
should  be  made  to  correspond.  Separations  for 
other  causes  than  adultery  there  may  be,  but 
dissolution  of  marriage,  never.  If  it  is  said 
that  such  a  law  works  liardship  in  many  cases, 
the  answer  is  that  all  laws  that  are  for  the  gen- 
eral good  sometimes  work  hardship  while  sin 
continues.  But  tlie  purity  and  tlie  perma- 
nency of  the  family  are  worth  so  much  to 
mankind  that  individuals  may  well  afford  to 
suffer  hardship  rather  than  contribute  to  the 
overthrow  of  so  precious  an  institution. 

13-16.  JESUS  BLESSES  LITTLE  CHIL- 
Dr.EN.  Parnllels,  Matt.  19  :  13-15 ;  Luke  18  : 
15-17. — Three  records,  closely  similar,  but  each 
Avitli  characteristic  additions.  No  one  of  them 
would  we  willingly  spare.  The  scene  is  still  in 
some  unknown  place  in  Persea. 

13.  If  the  record  in  this  chapter  is  strictly 
continuous,  this  event  occurred  in  the  house 
(verse  lo),  and  before  the  going  forth  into  the 
way  of  verse  17.  But  of  this  we  cannot  be 
perfectly  sure.  The  little  children  are  called 
by  Luke  "  infants."  We  are  left  to  conjecture 
as  to  their  number — ^which  i:)robably  was  not 
large — and  to  infer  that  they  were  Ijrought  by 
tlieir  parents.  The  motive  may  not  have  been 
the  most  intelligent ;  possibly  there  was  some 
idea  of  a  magical  value  in  his  touch.  Matthew 
alone  goes  beyond  the  request  that  he  would 
touch  them  to  say  that  he  was  asked  to  put 
his  hands  on  them  and  pray.  But  even  if  the 
request  was  an  ignorant  one  and  not  of  the 
highest  order,  it  was  an  appeal  to  his  heart, 
and  he  had  no  thought  of  putting  it  aside. — 
The  interference  of  liis  disciples  sprang  from 
reverence  for  their  blaster,  but  it  was  not  un- 
mixed with  contempt  for  the  yoiinj;  children. 
What  lack  of  sympatliy  with  Jesus  did  it  re- 
veal !    True  reverence  and  contempt  never  go 


together;  least  of  all,  reverence  for  Jesus  and 
contempt  for  any  who  are  simple  and  humble. 
Were  the  twelve  unanimous?  Can  we  not 
think  there  was  one  to  jjlead  for  the  children, 
as  Reuben  for  Joseph?  Was  it  partly  the  re- 
membrance of  this  scene  and  of  the  rebuke  he 
received  that  gave  John  his  fondness  for  the 
title,  "  little  children  "  ? 

14,  15.  The  description  of  the  deep  feeling 
of  Jesus  at  the  effort  of  his  friends  to  keep  the 
children  back  is  peculiar  to  Mark.  He  was 
much  displeased.  The  same  word  as  in 
Matt.  21 :  15,  where  the  chief  priests  and  scribes 
were  "  sore  displeased  "  at  the  children  in  the 
temple  who  were  crying,  "  Hosanna  to  the  Son 
of  David  !"  A  fine  contrast  between  his  spiiit 
and  theirs.  Ko  wonder  that  he  was  offended ; 
for  his  friends  were  interfering  to  hold  his 
heart  back  from  its  pleasure,  and  to  prevent  a 
richly  characteristic  act.  He  might  have  spoken 
again  as  at  chap.  9  :  19,  or  almost  as  at  8  :  33. 
But  the  milder  tone  is  more  in  harmony  with 
the  tender  beauty  of  the  scene.  Luke  adds 
that  "  Jesus  called  them  to  him,"  implying 
some  such  words  as  "  Come,  children,"  spoken 
to  dispel  the  fear  that  the  sour  looks  of  the 
disciples  may  have  awakened.  Of  him  they 
were  not  afraid. — Suffer  the  tittle  children, 
etc.  The  word  Sutler,  though  now  conse- 
crated by  use,  has  a  formality  and  solemnity 
about  it  that  his  word  did  not  possess.  Lit- 
erally translated,  it  is  simply,  "  Let  the  little 
children  come  to  me;  forbid  them  not."  A 
saying  of  inexliaustible  sweetness.  What  a 
tribute  to  the  true  humanity  of  Jesus  and  to 
the  heart  of  God  that  this  saying  should  have 
been  taken  everywhere  as  characteristic  of  our 
Lord !  All  the  world  loves  it,  and  feels  tenderly 
toward  him  for  giving  it  to  us.  It  expresses, 
not  merely  his  interest  in  the  class  whom  the 
children  suggest, — namely,  the  humble, — but  his 
interest  in  the  chiblren  themselves,  because  of 
their  spiritual  suggestiveness. — For  of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven — i.  e.  "These  are 
such  types  as  I  love  to  look  at  of  the  spirit  that 
belongs  to  the  members  of  my  kingdom.  I 
welcome  them,  in  their  tenderness,  simplicity, 


Cii.  X.] 


MARK. 


147 


1 ;  And  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands 
upon  them,  and  blessed  them. 


16  enter  therein.    And  he  took  them  in  his  arms,  and 
blessed  them,  laying  his  hands  upon  them. 


and  trustfulness,  as  illustrations  of  the  spirit 
into  which  men  are  to  be  brought  by  my  re- 
newing grace.  For  whoever  (verse  i5)  is  to  enter 
into  tlie  kingdom  must  receive  it  in  the  simple, 
humble  spirit  of  a  little  child.  Into  the  king- 
dom of  which  I  am  King  there  is  no  other 
way."  So  Matt.  18  :  S.  The  secret  of  it  is 
given  in  Matt.  11  :  29 :  "  For  I  am  :ueek  and 
lowly  in  heart."  (Compare  John  3  :  3.)  To 
be  born  again  is  to  come  to  this :  it  is  to  be 
made  a  little  child.  He  does  not  say  that  the 
children  are  in  his  kingdom  ;  not,  "  of  these  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Membership  in  "  the 
kingdom,"  strictly  so  called,  as  he  was  preach- 
ing it  and  as  we  must  preach  it,  implies  intel- 
ligence and  personal  faith.  Here  is  no  allusion 
to  baptism ;  and  here  was  his  golden  oppor- 
tunity if  he  had  wished  baptism  ever  to  be 
associated  with  infants.  Tliis  is  a  case  where 
we  are  justified  in  drawing  a  negative  argu- 
ment from  the  silence  of  the  Scripture.  Neither 
is  there  here  any  direct  allasion  to  the  sah'ation 
of  infants.  Yet  it  is  impossible  to  see  how  he 
could  have  spoken  so  freely  and  joyfully  over 
the  little  ones  if  he  had  been  hampered  by 
some  theories  about  elect  and  non-elect  infants 
that  have  burdened  many  of  his  followers. 

16.  A  touch  of  solemn  benediction  was  asked 
for;  an  embrace  of  personal  tenderness  was 
given  (Eph.  3:20).  The  act  is  passed  over  by 
Luke  and  barely  mentioned  by  Matthew ;  by 
^hu'k  it  is  described  with  a  lingering  delight. 
Literally,  "  Taking  them  in  his  arms,  he  blessed 
them,  i>utting  his  hands  upon  them."  The 
word  for  blessed  {kateulogei)  is  a  strong  com- 
pound word  used  here  altme  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. It  is  more  e.xpressive  of  fervent  inter- 
cession for  the  little  children  than  the  ordinary 
word.  In  the  embrace,  the  laying  on  of  his 
liands,  and  the  prayer  for  them  ins  lieart  went 
warndy  out.  His  prayer  must  have  been  a  re- 
(juest  that  in  their  years  of  responsibility  they 
might  still  have  the  spirit  that  made  them  so 
lovely  in  his  eyes  —  the  childlike  spirit  that 
would  receive  tlie  kingdom  of  God. — Tlie  ten- 
der happiness  of  Jesus  in  this  .scene  is  too  plain 
to  be  overlooked.  It  is  so  plain  ixs  to  make  us 
instinctively  reject  the  old  idea  that  he  was 
"  oft  known  to  weep,  but  never  known  to 
smile."  He  must  have  smiled  on  the  children, 
who  did  not  fear  to  come  to  his  arms.  He  was 
so  tenderly  happy  in  tlie  scene,  perliaps,  partly 
because  it  was  like  a  ray  of  light  in  the  deepen- 
ing darkness.  Men  were  rejecting  him,  but  here 
was  frank  and  joyful  trust  in  him,  even  if  it 


were  but  for  a  moment.  The  trustful  touch 
of  the  little  hands  wa.s  to  him  like  a  cup  of 
cold  water  when  he  was  weary.  To  the.se  httle 
children  it  was  given  to  do  what  prophets  and 
kings  might  well  have  been  thankful  to  be  al- 
lowed to  do :  they  refreshed  the  spirit  of  the 
Saviour  on  the  way  to  the  cross. — What  became 
of  them?  It  is  hard  to  think  (jf  them  as  per- 
ishing among  the  bhisphemers  at  the  fall  of  Je- 
rusalem. Were  they  not  rather,  if  they  lived  to 
see  that  time,  among  the  Christians  who  "  fled 
to  the  mountains"  at  their  Lord's  command, 
and  were  preserved  for  further  service  in  his 
kingdom?  Could  they  escape  the  remembrance 
of  his  prayer  and  gnjw  up  in  unbelief? 

17-31.  THE  RICH  YOUNG  MAN.  Paral- 
lels, Matt.  19  :  16-30 ;  Luke  18  :  18-30.— Mark,  as 
usual,  makes  the  picture  most  complete,  though 
it  is  Matthew  that  tells  us  that  the  man  was 
young,  and  Luke  that  he  was  a  ruler — /.  e.,  prob- 
ably, of  the  synagogue,  the  name  not  being  en- 
tirely decisive,  as  is  that  winch  is  given  to  Juirus 
in  chap.  5  :  22.  Mark  alone  tells  us  that  the  in- 
terview took  place  when  he  was  gone  forth 
into  the  way,  and  shows  us  the  picture  of  his 
earnestness  in  running  to  meet  or  overtake 
Jesus  and  kneeling  before  him.  Jesus  was  al- 
ready departing,  and  he  made  haste  with  his 
question  ere  he  should  be  gone.  The  grouping 
is  very  significant  here.  In  all  three  Gospels 
this  striking  example  of  the  failure  to  attain 
the  childlike  spirit  immediately  follows  the 
scene  with  the  little  ciiildrcn. 

Can  we  ascertain  who  this  young  man  was? 
No  name  is  given  inm,  but  is  there  anything  to 
warrant  and  guide  conjecture?  The  only  con- 
jecture wt)rth  mentioning  is  that  of  Dr.  Plump- 
tre,  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  (Art.  "  Laz- 
arus "),  that  he  was  Lazarus  of  Betiiany.  At  the 
outset  this  would  require  a  dill'ercnt  chronolog- 
ical arrangement  from  that  which  is  given  above; 
butsomeharmoiusts,  asDr.  Thomson,  in  Smith's 
Dictionary,  adopt  an  order  that  adnnts  of  this 
conjecture.  In  any  view,  the  order  is  not  so 
certain  in  this  period  that  we  need  be  disturbed 
at  any  proposals  of  change.  As  for  this  con- 
jecture, it  can  never  ])a.ss  into  certainty ;  but 
the  present  writer's  experience  is  that  the  longer 
it  remains  in  the  mind  the  more  probable  does 
it  appear.  (1)  He  is  nameless  in  tlie  record.  So 
are  Martha  and  Mary  in  the  syno))tical  Gospels, 
except  as  they  are  mentioned  in  Luke  10 :  38-42, 
where  there  is  nothing  to  connect  them  with 
Bethany  or  with  any  other  jiart  of  the  Gospel 
narrative.      Mary    api)ears    in.  the    anointing 


148 


MARK. 


[Ch.  X. 


17  ^  And"  when  he  was  gone  forth  into  the  way,  there 
came  one  running,  and  kneeled  to  hiui,and  asked  liim, 
Good  xViaster,  what  shall  1  do  that  1  may  inherit  eternal 
life .' 

18  And  Jesus  said  unto  hiui.  Why  callest  thou  me 
good?     There  is  none  good  but  one,'  iluit  u,  (jod. 


17  And  as  he  was  going  forth  'into  the  way,  there  ran 
one  to  him,  and  kneeled  to  him,  and  asked  him,  (iood 
^Master,  what  shall  1  do  that  1  may  inherit  eternal 

18 life?    And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  ^Vhy  callest  thou 


a  Matt.  19  :  16 ;  Luke  18  :  18. . .  .b  Ps.  86  :  5  ;  119  :  68.- 


-1  Or,  on  his  way. ^,.2  Or,  Teacher 


(iiatt.  26 : 7 ;  Mark  14 : 3)  simply  as  "  a  woman."  The 
raising  of  Lazarus,  with  all  that  could  suggest 
it,  was  kept  out  of  sight  by  the  synoptists,  evi- 
dently of  set  iiurpose ;  and  not  until  John  wrote 
was  the  concealment  removed.  If  Lazarus  were 
to  be  mentioned  by  the  synoptists,  it  would  prob- 
ably be  in  some  such  way  as  this.  (2)  The  young 
man  was  rich,  and  the  family  at  Bethany  is 
proved,  by  the  story  of  the  alabaster  box  of 
ointment,  to  have  been  of  the  wealthier  class. 
(3)  He  had  high  Jewish  standing  and  connex- 
ions. He  was  a  ruler — at  least,  of  the  syn- 
agogue, and  possibly  of  something  higher.  He 
may  have  been  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrin. 
After  the  death  of  Lazarus  "  many  of  the  Jews 
came  to  Martha  and  Mary,  to  comfort  them 
concerning  their  brother."  With  John  "  the 
Jews"  are  always  the  ruling  class,  the  religious 
leadei-s.  The  family  at  Bethany  therefore  had 
social  relations  with  many  of  this  class,  as  they 
would  have  if  one  of  their  number  were  a 
"ruler,"  in  either  sense.  (4)  The  young  man 
was  evidently  a  Pharisee,  and  the  conversation 
of  Martha  after  the  death  of  her  brother  indi- 
cates that  she  had  been  taught  as  a  Pharisee. 
(5)  The  only  special  liint  of  personal  relations 
between  Jesus  and  Lazarus  is  found  in  the 
words,  "  Lord,  behold,  he  whom  thou  lovest  is 
sick."  The  only  man  of  whom  it  is  said  that 
Jesus  loved  him,  apart  from  the  circle  of  the 
apostles,  is  this  rich  young  man.  The  fact  that 
Jesus  beholding  him  loved  him  would  cer- 
tainly, if  the  young  man  was  Lazarus,  reach 
his  sisters  and  touch  their  hearts,  and  might 
most  naturally  be  taken  up  by  them  as  an  ap- 
peal to  Jesus  when  they  wished  him  to  come 
and  save  their  brother's  life.  If  the  young  man 
was  not  Lazarus,  he  was  some  one  who  was  sit- 
uated in  life  much  as  Lazarus  was ;  and  the  co- 
incidences are  such  as  to  render  the  identifica- 
tion at  least  considerably  plausible.  It  should 
be  remembered  that  there  is  evidence  of  only 
one  visit  to  the  house  in  Bethany  before  this 
time.  The  signs  of  intimacy  there  belong  to 
the  closing  period  of  our  Lord's  life. 

17.  Good  Master,  what  shall  I  do  that 
I  may  inherit  eternal  life?  The  question 
is  identical  in  Mark  with  that  of  the  lawyer  at 
Luke  10  :  25.  In  Matthew  the  young  man  pro- 
poses to  himself  tlie  doing    of  some  "good 


thing."  The  question  is  that  of  Pharisaism. 
It  does  not  confess  any  inability  or  weakness 
with  respect  to  good,  but  rather  assumes  full 
power  and  seeks  for  guidance  only  in  the  selec- 
tion of  a  course  of  conduct.  The  idea  of  doing 
something,  in  order  to  gain,  and  even  to  inherit, 
life  had  full  possession  of  the  young  man's  mind, 
as  we  might  expect  from  his  Pharisaism.  The 
need  of  doing  good  works,  and  full  confidence 
in  his  own  power  and  willingness  to  do  any 
needful  good  work,  these  are  the  striking  points 
of  the  question.  Yet  a  Pharisee  must  have  been 
touched  by  an  unwonted  influence  before  he 
would  come  running  to  Jesus  with  this  inquiry, 
addressing  him  as  "Rabbi,"  and  esi^ecially  as 
"  Good  Rabbi,"  a  title  unknown  among  the 
Jews,  and  framed  by  him  to  suit  his  thought 
{Farrar,  2.  160,  note).  The  man  must  have  felt 
that  this  Rabl)i  was  indeed  good  and  al3lc  to 
teach  him  concerning  the  good  that  he  would 
gladly  do. 

18.  In  the  answer  there  is  no  emphasis  on 
either  thou  or  me.  It  is  not,  Why  callast 
thou  me  good?  as  if  he  would  say,  "What, 
from  your  point  of  view,  can  such  a  title  mean  ?" 
It  is  not,  \Vhy  callest  thou  me  good?  as  if 
he  would  say,  "  Why  single  me  out  to  receive 
this  title?"  "  Why  do  you  call  me  good?"  read 
in  the  ordinary  way,  exactly  represents  the  an- 
swer, and  the  emphatic  word  is  good.  In  Mat- 
thew the  true  reading  of  the  reply  is  different, 
and  Jesus  asks,  "  Why  askest  thou  me  concern- 
ing the  good?"  Here,  though  the  reference  is 
to  the  question  the  man  had  asked  rather  than 
to  the  title  he  had  employed,  the  effect  is  the 
same  in  calling  his  attention  to  the  word  good 
and  the  idea  of  goodness.  In  both,  his  th(  lughts 
are  called  away  at  once  from  himself  and  from 
the  Rabbi  whom  he  is  consulting  to  tlie  word 
he  has  used  and  the  true  way  to  find  a  definition 
of  it.  "What  of  that  word  'good'?  Do  you 
understand  it?  Do  you  know  where  you  must 
look  for  a  true  idea  of  goodness?  No  one  is 
good  but  God  alone.  You  are  talking  of  higher 
things  than  you  suppose,  and  you  must  look  up 
to  him  for  your  standard  before  you  can  talk  or 
act  intelligently  about  goodness."  In  this  view, 
our  Lord  does  not  disclaim  the  title  Good,  but 
rather  ignores  it  as  applied  to  himself  and  as- 
serts that  the  word  can  never  be  understood 


Ch.  X.] 


MARK. 


149 


19  Thou  k  newest  the"  commandments,  Do  not  com- 
mit adultery,  l)o  not  kill,  Uo  not  stoiil,  Do  not  bear 
false  witness,  Defraud  not,  Honor  thy  father  and  mo- 
ther. 

2'i  And  he  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Master,  all' 
these  have  I  observed  from  my  youth. 

21  Then  Jesus  heholdiiij;  him,  loved  him,  and  said 
unto  him.  One"  thing  thou  laekest ;  go  thy  way,  sell 
whatsoever  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou 
Shalt  have  treasure''  in  heaven  :  and  eome,  take  up  the 
cross,  and  follow  me. 


19  me  good  ?  none  is  good  save  one,  even  God.  Thou 
knowest  the  commandments.  Do  not  kill,  Do  not 
commit  adultery,  Do  not  steal.  Do  not  hear  false 
witness.  Do  not  defraud.  Honor  thy  father  and  mo- 

20  ther.   And  he  said  unto  him,  'Master,  all  these  things 

21  have  I  observed  from  my  youth.  And  .lesus  look- 
ing upon  him  loved  him,  and  said  unto  him.  One 
thing  thou  lackest :  go,  sell  whatsoever  thou  ha.st, 
and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure 


until  one  ha.s  learned  to  define  it  through  the 
kno\vled>i;e  of  God.  His  purpose  is  to  awaken 
in  the  man  a  sense  of  the  inadeiiuaey  of  his  own 
conceptions;  and  this  he  seeks  to  ilo  by  leading 
him  to  lift  his  eyes  to  the  Perfect  Goodness. — 
Our  Lord  did  not  disclaim  the  title ;  yet  we 
need  not  have  been  troubled  if  by  saying,  "  God 
alone  is  good,"  he  had  meant,  "  That  title  is  not 
for  me."  He  spoke  alwaj's  in  human  relations 
— not,  indeed,  "as  man"  any  more  than  "as 
God:"  both  phrases  are  wrong;  but  there  was 
no  word  upon  his  lips  that  did  not  become  the 
position  and  standing  of  a  man ;  and  the  hu- 
mility that  would  disclaim  the  title  Good  in 
such  a  connection  as  this  would  argue  nothing 
against  either  his  divinity  or  his  sinlcssness. 

19.  But  as  for  counsel  respecting  the  attain- 
ment of  life  he  refers  (as  in  verse  3)  to  the  exist- 
ing authority,  the  law  under  which  the  man  is 
livin,.?.  This  authority,  he  says,  is  alreaily 
known.  Thou  knowest  the  command- 
meuts.  The  parts  of  the  law  that  he  cites  are 
from  the  second  table  of  the  Decalogue,  and  re- 
late to  the  duty  of  man  to  man.  Mark  alone 
adds  Defraud  not,  which  is  not,  like  the 
other  comui.uids,  in  the  Decalogue.  Perhaps  it 
m.iy  have  been  meant  as  a  special  application, 
in  a  rich  man's  case,  of  the  tenth  command- 
ment, "Thou  shalt  not  covet;"  as  if  Jesus 
would  lead  him  to  inquire  whether  all  his 
wealth  had  been  acquired  without  defrauding. 
Matthew  inserts  instead  of  it,  as  a  solemn  close, 
"Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself." — 
Whether  Mark's  Defraud  not  is  an  interpre- 
tation of  the  tenth  commandment  or  an  inter- 
polation of  a  command  from  elsewhere  in 
Scripture  to  the  midst  of  the  Decalogue,  it  is  a 
very  remarkable  instance  of  free  use  of  Old- 
Testament  language  by  New-Testiiment  writers, 
and  by  our  Lord  himself.  One  would  think 
that  if  exact  quotation  were  to  be  found  any- 
where, it  would  be  in  the  use  of  the  Decalogue 
by  .Tewish  writers  and  by  oitr  Lord.  Yet  here 
is  a  striking  neglect  to  quote  with  precision. 

20.  Master  ("  Rabbi  ")— not,  again,  "  Good  " 
{Meyer)— &\\  these  have  I  observed  from 


my  youth.  He  liad  not  yet  found  his  answer ; 
he  was  still  perplexed  at  being  told  to  do  what 
he  supposed  he  had  always  been  doing.  Was 
this  self-praise?  Perhaps  not,  consciously;  it 
was  rather  the  consciousness  of  integrity  accord- 
ing to  an  outward  law.  Judaism  was  full  of 
that  consciousness,  sometimes  shallow  and  self- 
righteous  and  sometimes  devout.  But  had  the 
yoiuig  man  ever  observed  the  commandments 
with  the  full  conviction  that  God  alone  is  good, 
and  with  the  deep  humility  and  spirituality 
which  that  thought  should  bring?  No;  and 
he  did  not  yet  comprehend  the  difference, 
though  he  longed  for  the  better  thing.  Here 
is  the  record  of  a  moral  and  outwardly  re- 
ligious life,  with  the  cry  of  the  soul  for  some- 
thing more  and  the  pathetic  demand  to  know 
what  that  something  is:  "What  lack  I  yet?" 
(Matthew).  Compare  and  contrast  his  inquiries 
with  the  questions  in  Acts  2  :  37  and  1(>  :  30. 

21.  Jesus   beholding   him,    loved   him. 
Not  merely  beholding,  but  hxjking  with  a  fixed 
and  earnest  gaze,  which  the  beholders  did  not 
forget.     This  exquisite  touch  of  remembrance 
is  peculiar  to  Mark.    The  gaze  revealed  a  gen- 
uine love,  of  whicii  the  yoiuig  man  mu.st  have 
been  aware,  and  which   made  itself  manifest 
also  to  the  disciples.     Perhaps  some  word  or 
act  completed  the  expression.   There  is  no  need 
of  perplexing  ourselves  as  to  the  effect  of  the 
love  on  the  man's  destiny,  or  of  bringing  the 
love  into  theological  relations.     Let  the  story 
remain  sweet  and  simple.     It  is  enough  to  say 
that  the  heart  of  Jesus  lovingly  yearned  over 
the  young  man  in  his  sincere  though  Phari.saic 
.seeking  after  good.      If  the  yoiuig  nuut  was 
Lazarus,  the  remembrance  of  the  love  attached 
itself  to  his  name. — Love  is  always  kind,  es- 
pecially his  love,  but  this  time  it  was  severe : 
severity  was  kindness.     This  conuuand  was  the 
I  true  utterance  of  love.    One  thin^;  thou  lack* 
1  est.     He  does  not  say  one  thing  alone,  Init  one 
\  he  mentions.     The  similarity  of  this  language 
j  to  that  of  his  quiet  rebuke  to  Martha  has  been 
1  noticed  by  those  who  here  have  Lazarus  in  mind 
\  (Luke  10 :M). — The  couimand  is  twofold,  looking 


150 


MARK. 


[Ch.  X. 


22  And  he  was  sad  at  that  saying,  and  went  away 
grieved;  for  he  had  great  possessions. 

23  H  And  Jesus  looked  round  about,  and  saith  unto 
his  disciples.  How  hardly  shall  they  that  have  riches 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God ! 

24  And  the  disciples  were  astonished  at  his  words. 
But  Jesus  answeretli  again,  and  saith  unto  them.  Chil- 
dren, how  hard  is  it  for  them  that  trust"  in  riches  to 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  (jodl 


22  in  heaven :  and  come,  follow  me.  But  his  counte- 
nance fell  at  the  saying,  and  he  went  away  sorrowful : 
for  he  was  one  that  had  great  possessions. 

23  And  .lesus  looked  round  about,  and  saith  unto  his 
disciples.  How  hardly  shall   they  that   have  riches 

24 enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God!  And  the  disciples 
were  amazed  at  his  words.  But  Jesus  answereth 
again,  and  saith  unto  them,  (^hildren,  how  hard  is 
it  ^for  them  that  trust  in  riches  to  enter  into  the 


a  Job  31  :  24 ;  Pa.  52  :  7  ;  62  :  10  ;  Hab.  2:9;  1  Tim.  6 :  17  ;  Rev.  3:17.- 


-1  Borne  ancient  authorities  omit/or  them  that  trust  in  richee. 


back  and  looking  forward ;  and  botli  parts  are 
intended  to  reveal  to  the  man  whether  or  not 
he  has  a  heart  for  the  good.  The  first  part.sell 
whatsoever  thou  hast,  etc.,  enjoins  tlie  break- 
ing off  of  his  old  life  by  an  act  of  extreme  self-- 
sacrifice  and  of  genuine  usefulness.  It  was  an 
act,  too,  that  lay  directly  in  tlie  line  of  his  own 
princii:)les ;  for  almsgiving  was  great  in  the  es- 
teem of  all  devotit  Jews.  Only  this  would  be 
an  extreme,  self-emptying  act  that  would  scatter 
his  worldly  store  and  destroy  his  pride  as  a  rich 
man. — Yet  there  was  encouragement.  Thou 
Shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven.  The  bless- 
ing of  God  on  a  right  deed.  (Comijare  Matt. 
6  :  19,  20 ;  1  Tim.  6  :  17-19 ;  Ps.  112  :  9  ;  and 
especially  Luke  12:33.)  —  The  second  part, 
come,  .  .  .  follow  me  (the  revisers  omit,  on 
good  authority,  take  up  the  cross),  directs  the 
man  to  set  out  in  a  new  life,  the  life  of  a  dis- 
ciple. The  whole  is,  "  Deny  yourself  of  what 
you  now  i^ossess,  devote  it  to  doing  good,  and 
then  join  yourself  to  me."  It  often  seems  as 
if  this  command  were  in  direct  contrast  with 
the  characteristic  words,  "Come  unto  me,  all 
ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will 
give  you  rest;"  but  it  is  not,  for  this  command 
only  points  out  what  it  will  be  for  this  man, 
heavy  laden  with  his  peculiar  burdens,  to  come 
and  learn  of  him  who  is  meek  and  lowly  in 
heart;  This  is  no  arbitrary  test.  The  require- 
ment, taken  in  connection  with  the  man's  ques- 
tion, means,  "  Do  you  know  and  love  the  good 
well  enough  to  devote  to  it  your  wealth  and 
your  life?"  To  obey  the  command  of  Jesus 
would  be  this  man's  short  course  to  rest  for  his 
soul. 

22.  The  descriptive  word  sad,  used  in  Mark 
alone,  is  translated  "  lowering  "  in  the  only  other 
place  in  the  New  Testament  where  it  is  found 
(iiatt.  16: 3).  No  doubt  it  was  chosen  in  vivid  re- 
membrance of  the  lowering  look  upon  his  sad 
countenance. — He  went  away  grieved  (Luke, 
"  very  sorrowful,"  as  in  Mark  6  :  26  and  14  :  34) ; 
for  he  had  great  possessions.  For  the  time 
at  least  love  was  too  severe  for  him,  and  the 
good  was  too  exacting.  He  was  an  illustration 
of  Luke  2  :  34,  35.  Jesus  was  set  for  liis  fall^ 
perhaps  also  for  his  rising — but  at  present  the 


thoughts  of  his  heart  were  revealed  as  the 
thoughts  of  a  man  who  was  not  "  fit  for  the 
kingdom  "  (Luke  9 :  62).  He  was  proposing  to  put 
his  hand  to  the  plough,  but  he  was  looking  back 
to  the  things  that  were  behind.  He  could  count 
himself  a  man  and  keep  the  commandments  in 
a  fair  life,  but  he  could  not  become  a  little  child. 
Yet  we  cannot  but  be  glad  that  he  was  sorrow- 
ful :  if  he  had  gone  recklessly  away,  we  should 
have  had  no  hope  of  him. 

23.  Now  again  the  deliberate  look  of  Jesus 
roiind  the  whole  circle  of  his  disciples,  gazing 
into  each  face,  impressed  itself  on  the  memory 
of  Mark's  informant.  His  saying,  IIow  hard- 
ly— i.  e.  with  what  difficulty — shall  they  that 
have  riches  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God !  is  amply  confirmed  by  experience. 
Christian  men  often  become  rich,  but  rich 
men  rarely  become  Christians.  The  reason  is 
not  far  to  seek  :  the  process  of  gaining  wealth 
encourages  self-seeking,  and  the  possession  of 
it  encourages  self-importance ;  but  the  spirit 
that  can  enter  the  kingdom  is  the  spirit  of  a 
little  child. 

24,  This  remarkable  verse  is  peculiar  to 
Mark.  The  astonishment  of  the  disciples  was 
natural,  with  their  ideas  of  the  kingdom. 
"  Hard  for  rich  men !  What  can  he  mean  ?" 
All  the  splendid  imagery  of  the  proi)hets  (as 
in  Isa.  60)  might  rise  in  their  minds  to  con- 
tradict him ;  and  tlie  idea  of  delivering  Israel 
from  oppression  by  a  kingdom  that  rich  men 
could  scarcely  enter  must  have  seemed  to  them 
abstird.  But  Jesus  solemnh'  repeated  his  hard 
saying;  yet  his  mood  was  tender,  as  his  word 
Children  shows,  here  alone  addressed  to  them. 
("  Little  children,"  in  John  13  :  33.)— According 
to  the  common  reading,  the  repetition  of  the 
saying  explains  and  softens  it  by  the  modifica- 
tion. How  hard  is  it  for  them  that  trust 
in  riches  to  enter.  But  there  seems  sufficient 
reason  to  accept  tlie  reading  of  ancient  man- 
uscripts by  which  the  words  for  them  that 
trust  in  riches  are  omitted.  In  that  case  the 
repetition  of  the  saying  removes  it  from  the 
special  case  of  rich  men  and  applies  tlie  senti' 
mciit  more  widely:  Children,  how  hard  it 
is   to   enter  into   the  kingdom  of  God! 


Ch.  X.] 


MARK. 


151 


2o  It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a 
needle,  than  for  a  rich  man  to  euler  into  the  kingdom 
of  t  iod. 

2()  And  they  were  astonished  out  of  measure,  saying 
among  tlieniselves.  Who  then  can  he  saved'.' 

27  And  .lesiis  looking  upon  them,  saith.  With  men  it 
i<  impossible,  but  not  with  (_iod:  for"  with  God  all 
things  are  possible. 

2.H  H  Then  I'eter  began  to  say  unto  him,  Lo,  we  have 
left  all,  and  have  followed  thee. 

29  And  .lesus  answered  and  said,  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  there  is  no  man  that  hath  left  house,  or  brethren, 
or  sisters,  or  father,  or  mother,  or  wife,  or  childj-eu,  or 
lands,  for  my  sake,  and  the  gospel's, 

30  But  he  shall  receive  an  hundred-fold  now  in  this 
time,  houses,  and  brethren,  and  si.sters,  and  nu>lhers, 
and  children,  and  land.s,  with  persecutions ;  and  in  the 
world  to  come  eternal  life. 


25  kingdom  of  <  iod !  It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go 
through  a  needle  s  eye,  than  tor  a  rich  man  to  enter 

26  into  tlie  kingdom  of  (lod.  And  they  were  a.ston- 
ished  exceedingly,  saying  Uinto  him.  Then  who  can 

27  be  saved?  Jesu.s  looking  upon  them  saith.  With  men 
it  is  impossible,  but  not  with  (iod;  for  all  things  are 

28  possible  with  (iod.   I'eter  began  to  say  unto  him,  Lo, 

29  we  have  left  all.  and  have  followed  thee.  Jesus  said. 
Verily  I  say  unto  you.  There  is  no  man  that  hath 
left  liouse,  or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or  mother,  or 
father,  or  children,  or  lands,  for  my  sake,  and  for 

30  the  gospel's  sake,  but  he  shall  receive  a  hundredfold 
now  in  this  time,  houses,  and  brethren,  and  sister.s, 
and  mothers,  and  children,  and  lands,  with  persecu- 


a  Geo.  18  :  U ;  Job  4'i  :  2  ;  Jer.  32  :  17  ;  Luke  1  :  37.- 


-I  Many  ancient  authorities  read  amotxg  themselves. 


Plainly,  such  a  remark  was  a  natural  outcome 
of  the  incident,  for  it  was  not  chiefly  his  riches, 
but  his  heart,  tiiat  sent  the  man  away  sorrowful, 
and  a  like  heart  is  in  all  men.  To  all  men, 
therefore,  rich  or  poor,  it  is  by  nature  hard  to 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God — hard  in  it- 
self, since  sin  is  what  it  is. — Let  us  not  be  afraid 
tiiat  such  a  text  will  prove  too  discouraging.  It 
i-i  better  to  know  things  as  tliey  are ;  and  perhaps 
til 3  doctrine  of  free  grace  has  been  so  used  as  to 
lead  to  an  untrue  idea  of  the  easiness  of  salva- 
tijii. 

25.  It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through 
the  eye  of  a  needle.  This  comparison  may 
liave  been  proverbial,  tis  the  Talmud  contains, 
at  a  later  date,  a  closely  similar  saying.  The 
Koran  exactly  reproduces  it  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment. As  for  the  pojmlar  explanation — that 
the  small  gate  in  the  city  wall,  too  narrow  for  a 
camel  to  pass  through,  was  called  the  needle's 
eye — there  is  no  sutficient  evidence  of  the  an- 
ti(|iiity  of  such  a  use  of  the  name.  The  com- 
parison needs  no  special  explanation ;  it  is  a 
strong  way  of  representing  impossibility  :  "  It  is 
so  hard  for  sinful  men,  rich  or  poor,  to  enter 
the  kingd(nn,  that  for  a  rich  man — one  who  is 
especially  involved  in  the  unchildlike  habits  of 
the  world — to  enter  is  harder  than  for  a  camel 
to  go  througli  a  needle's  eye."  This  is  no  con- 
tradiction of  any  gracious  and  winning  Scrip- 
ture. It  is  the  Saviour's  emphatic  statement  of 
a  fact,  i)arallel  to  Luke  13  :  24  and  14  :  26-33, 
and  to  many  other  of  his  words. 

2(>,  27.  Astonished  before;  astonished 
out  of  measure  now.— The  iiKjuiry  wa.s 
among  themselves,  a  whispering  of  amaze- 
ment. Who  then  can  be  saved  ?  With  such 
a  standard,  how  would  the  kingdom  receive 
any  one  ?  For  was  not  the  love  of  money  ev- 
erywhere? and  how  could  the  kingdom  live, 
with  a  law  so  strict'?  —  Jesus  looking  upon 
them.  Again  Peter  remembered  his  look. 
The  word,  both  here  and  in  verse  21,  is  the 


same  as  in  Luke  22  :  01 :  "  The  Lord  turned  and 
looked  on  Pettjr." — With  men  it  is  impos- 
sible. Not  now  difficult,  but  more.  On  hu- 
man principles  or  by  any  power  of  man  it  can- 
not be  done ;  the  proud  man  cannot  be  brought 
into  the  kingdom  of  the  humble,  or  the  world- 
ly-minded rich  man  into  the  kingdom  of  the 
poor  in  spirit.  So  in  John  3:3:  "  Except  a  man 
be  horn  again,  he  cannot  .see  the  kingdom  of 
God." — But  not  with  God:  for  with  God 
all  things  are  possible.  He  can  make  new 
creatures  of  men  ;  he  can  impart  the  spirit  of 
the  kingdom.  He  has  command,  too,  of  all 
means,  earthly  and  heavenly.  So  he  can  bring 
into  his  kingdom  men  who  are  spiritually  in- 
compatible with  it.  (See  1  Tim.  1  :  12-17 ;  1 
Cor.  15  :  9,  10.)  The  implication  is  that,  even 
though  this  case  looks  so  hopeless,  God  can  yet 
find  means  of  bringing  the  unwilling  rich  man 
to  a  better  mind.  In  his  hands  are  even  life 
and  death. 

28.  Peter,  as  usual,  speaks  for  them  all,  say- 
ing, in  substance,  "  We  have  done  what  this 
man  would  not :  we  have  accepted  the  king- 
d(3m  on  the  right  terms  at  personal  sacrifice." 
The  questicm,  "  What  shall  we  have,  there- 
fore?" added  in  Matthew,  is  plainly  implied 
here  and  in  Luke.  Here  is  a  frank  statement 
of  self-seeking,  even  in  self-renunciation ;  self- 
denial  in  the  hope  of  direct  returns.  The 
apostles  were  still  hoping  that  their  special 
honors  in  the  kingdom  would  make  amends 
for  everything.  Yet  in  the  words  of  Peter 
now  there  may  be  a  tone  of  despair,  in  view 
of  the  depression  of  their  prospects  implied  in 
the  words  just  spoken  :  '' What  shall  we  have, 
what  amends,  if  the  kingdom  is  to  be  of  this 
exacting  and  unamljitious  kind?"  No  con- 
cealment anywhere  of  the  low  spiritual  tone 
of  the  disciples. 

29,  30.  How  tender  and  wise  the  answer! 
There  is  no  distinct  rebuke,  but  there  is  a 
silent  one  in  the  fact  that  the  promise  is  made, 


152 


MAEK. 


[Ch.  X. 


SI  But"  many  that  are  first  shall  be  last ;  and  the  last 
first. 

y2  1[  And'  they  were  in  the  way  going  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem ;  and  Jesus  went  bel'ore  them :  and  they  were 
amazed;  and  as  they  followed,  they  were  afraid.  And 
he  took  again  the  twelve,  and  began  to  tell  them  what 
things  should  happen  unto  him. 


31  tions ;  and  in  the  'world  to  come  eternal  life.  But 
many  (IkiI  are  first  shall  be  last ;  and  the  last  first. 

32  And  they  were  in  the  way,  going  up  to  Jerusalem  ; 
and  Jesus  was  going  before  them:  and  they  were 
amazed ;  and  they  that  followed  were  afraid.  And 
he  took  again  the  twelve,  and  began  to  tell  them  the 


a  Matt.  20  :  16;  Luke  13  :  30 h  Matt.  20  :  17,  etc.;  Luke  18  :  31,  etc. 1  Or,  age 


not  to  the  apostles  only,  but  to  all  who  make 
such  sacrifices  as  they  speak  of.  Apostles  have 
no  exclusive  claim,  nor  even  an  assurance  of 
pre-eminence  in  this  respect.  The  rewards  of 
the  kingdom  are  for  all  the  faithful,  all  who, 
for  my  sake,  and  the  gospel's,  have  for- 
saken what  they  held  dear.  Note  the  true 
suggestion — that  the  forsaking  must  be  for  a 
person  and  for  a  principle.  Jesus  wishes  not 
to  be  regarded  apart  from  the  gospel,  nor  can 
the  gospel  be  regarded  as  a  true  object  of  sacri- 
fice apart  from  Jesus.  So  in  chap.  8  :  38.  The 
promise  seems  to  mean  (for  of  course  the  iirom- 
ise  of  multiplication  of  goods  cannot  be  taken 
literally)  that  all  good  that  is  given  \i\}  for 
Christ  shall  be  immeasurably  more  precious 
to  the  soul  for  the  surrender.  It  shall  be  given 
back  to  the  soul,  if  not  to  the  hands,  enhanced 
a  hundi'ed-fold  in  value.  It  may  be  given  back 
to  the  hands — i.  e.  sacrifices  may  be  required 
in  spirit  that  are  not  called  for  in  the  course  of 
divine  providence — and  in  that  case  the  hun- 
dred-fold of  new  preciousness  is  always  found. 
But  to  the  soul  all  that  is  given  tip  for  Christ 
shall  be  returned,  and  thus  graciously  multi- 
pHed.  (The  possible  thoughts  of  the  lad  who 
gave  up  his  loaves  and  fishes,  John  6:9.)  The 
principle  of  self-sacrifice  sweetens  life  instead 
of  embittering  it,  and  the  experience  of  self- 
denial  surprises  the  soul  with  unthought-of 
wealth.  So  much  at  present;  and  in  the  age 
that  is  coming,  with  its  full  spiritual  rewards, 
eternal  life.  So  1  Tim.  4  :  8. — But  the  warning 
lies  in  the  solemn  reservation,  preserved  by 
Mark  alone.  With  persecutions.  No  easy 
way  leads  to  these  honors  and  rewards  (2  Tim. 

3  :  12;  2  Cor.  11  :  2.'i-2?  ;  6  :  4-10).      EvCll    wllCn    OUtward 

persecution  is  not,  still  the  principle  is  the 
same:  it  is  no  easy  way. — The  hundred-fold 
will  not  prevent  the  persecutions ;  but  neither 
will  the  persecutions  interfere  with  the  coming 
of  the  hundred-fold. 

31.  A  wise  caution.  "  The  judgment  of  God 
is  according  to  truth,"  and  rank  will  finally  be 
determined  by  true  judgment  and  not  accord- 
ing to  present  ai)])earances.  Let  no  man  boast; 
even  the  rich  young  man  who  has  gone  away 
sorrowful  may  possibly  yet  outrank  the  apos- 
tles.   Here,  according  to  Matthew,  our  Lord 


adds  the  parable  of  the  Laborers  (Matt.  20 :  i-ie) 
to  illustrate  the  solemn  warning,  many  that 
are  first  shall  be  last;  and  the  last  hrst, 

to  which,  at  the  end  of  the  parable,  he  returns. 
— The  rich  young  man  we  see  no  more,  unless 
under  his  proper  name.  Those  who  think  that 
he  may  have  been  Lazarus  suggest  that  his 
sickness,  death,  and  restirrection,  or  some  part 
of  that  great  experience,  may  have  been  used 
by  God,  to  whom  all  things  are  possible,  in 
bringing  him  to  the  spmt  of  the  kingdom. 
Whoever  he  may  have  been,  we  cannot  sup- 
press the  hope  that  he  who  is  said  to  have 
loved  him  did  not  leave  him  to  himself. 

32-34.  ON  THE  JOURNEY  JESUS  AGAIN 
FORETELLS  HIS  DEATH  AND  RESUR- 
RECTION. Parallels,  Matt.  20  :  17-19  ;  Luke 
18  :  31-34. 

32.  Scarcely  do  we  possess  a  more  impressive 
portrait  of  our  Lord  in  action  than  this,  which 
is  drawn  for  us  by  Mark  alone.  The  verbs  in 
the  first  sentence  are  in  the  imperfect  tense, 
and  might  denote  that  this  was  a  picture  of 
him  as  he  habitually  was  during  that  journey ; 
but  the  connection  makes  it  more  probable  that 
they  are  meant  to  represent  him  as  he  was  at 
the  moment  when,  for  reasons  that  are  sug- 
gested here,  he  took  his  disciples  aside  and 
spoke  to  them.  They  were  in  the  way,  and 
he  was  going  before  them,  walking  on  in 
silence  in  advance  of  the  company.  The  apos- 
tles were  near  him,  and  others,  probably  many, 
followed.  The  cllect  is  thus  told,  as  in  the  Re- 
vision :  "  And  they  were  amazed ;  and  they  that 
followed  were  afraid."  Astonishment  seized 
upon  the  disciples,  and  the  multitude  behind 
them  were  stricken  with  awe  and  fear.  No 
hint  is  given  of  the  reason  for  this ;  the  por- 
trait is  not  drawn,  after  all,  but  only  suggested. 
Yet  we  cannot  be  in  dotibt ;  it  was  something 
in  the  appearance  and  manner  of  Jesus  that 
filled  friends  and  strangers  with  tliis  solemnity. 
It  must  have  been  the  preoccupied,  solemn, 
and  determined  look  with  which  he  was  silent- 
ly pressing  on  to  death.  Peter  remembered  it 
well,  but  perhaps  he  shrank  from  attempting 
to  describe  it,  excejjt  by  its  effects.  Jesus  was 
consciously  pressing  forward  into  the  perse- 
cutions, and  he  went  with  his  might.     All 


Ch.  X.] 


MARK. 


153 


33  Sai/iiiff,  Beholil,  we"  go  up  to  Jenisaleiu  ;  ami  the 
Son  of  "man  sliall  lie  delivered  unto  the  eliiel'  priests, 
and  unto  the  serities,  and  they  shall  eoiideinn  him  to 
death,  and  shall  deliver  him  to  the  (ientiles; 

;u  And'  they  shall  mock  him,  and  shall  scourge  him, 
and  shall  spil"upon  him,  and  shall  kill  him:  and  the 
third  (lav  he  shall  rise  again. 

:v>  "j  And  .lames  and  .lohn,  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  come 
unto  liini,  saying,  Master,  we  would  that  thou  shouldest 
do  for  us  whatsoever  we  shall  desire. 

:j(;  .\nd  he  said  unto  them.  What  would  ye  that  I 
should  do  for  you' 

:!7  'I'liey  said"  unto  liim,  Crant  unto  us  that  we  may- 
sit,  one  on  thy  right  hand,  and  the  other  on  thy  left 
hand,  iu  thy  glory. 


33  things  that  were  to  happen  unto  him, .?(/;/'».'/,  Behold, 
we  go  up  to  Jerusalem  ,  and  the  Son  ol  man  shall  be 
delivered  unto  the  chief  priests  and  the  .scribes;  and 
they  shall  condemn  him  to  death,  and  shall  deliver 

34  him  unto  the  (ientiles:  and  they  shall  mock  him,  and 
shall  spit  upon  him,  and  shall  .scourge  him,  and  shall 
kill  him;  and  after  three  days  he  shall  rise  ai;ain. 

35  And  there  come  near  unto  him  .lames  and  .lohn, 
the  .sons  of  Zebedee,  saying  unto  him,  '.Niaster,  we 
would  that  thou  shouldest  do  for  us  whatsoever  we 

:!()  shall  ask  of  thee.     And   he  said  unto   them,  What 

37  woukl  ye  that  1  should  do  for  you?     And  they  said 

unto  him,  (irant  unto  us  that  we  may  sit,  one  on  thy 

right  hand,  and  one  ou  t/iy  left  hand,  iu  thy  glory. 


.6Ps.  »:6,  T,  13.- 


tliat  he  commands  us  he  himself  has  done,  and 
the  highest  ambition  for  man  is  "so  to  walk 
even  a.s  he  walked."  To  do  that  may  some- 
times be  to  press  bravely  into  the  sorrows  of 
the  kingdom,  as  he  did.  Tlie  fear  of  tiie  fol- 
lowers indicates  that  they  felt  the  sliadow  of 
his  dark  future  falling  ujion  tliem  and  shrank 
from  gi)ing  into  it. — He  took  again  the 
twelve — gallu-rrd  thein  close  aljout  him— and 
began  to  tell  them,  liaving  walked  till  then 
in  siUncc,  what  things  should  happen 
unto  him  at  Jerusalem. 

33,  34.  The  most  elaborate  of  his  predic- 
tions of  tlie  Passion.  A  new  element  appears 
for  the  tirst  time,  the  delivering  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, whicli  enters  here  into  all  three  of  the 
reports.  The  details  of  his  Passion,  too,  are 
more  mintitely  drawn  titan  before.  The  resur- 
rection, as  before,  is  barely  announced ;  he 
never  enlarged  ui^on  it  as  he  here  does  on  his 
sufferings.  Was  this  human  foresight  or  di- 
vine foreknowledge?  The  question  need  not 
trouble  us.  It  was  both  :  he  foreknew  it,  and 
he  fore.saw  it — foreknew  it  from  the  standpoint 
of  his  divine  nu.ssion,  and  foresaw  it  none  tlie 
le.ss  clearly  as  an  interpreter  of  liuinan  events. 
— It  is  atlded  in  Luke  that  "  tliey  understood 
none  of  these  tilings,"  the  old  slowness  t<i  take 
his  meaning  being  still  tipon  them.  In  this 
failure  to  understand  the  prediction,  coupled 
with  the  "fear"  just  mentioned,  we  have  a 
glimpse  of  their  mixed  feeling,  doubtless  full 
of  foreboding,  and  yet  tinalile  to  take  in  the 
true  sense  of  the  coming  evil. 

35-45.  TIIE  AMBITION  OF  JAMES  AND 
JOHN  REPROVED.  Parallel,  Matt.  20 :  20-28. 
— Here  is  a  living  ilkistration  of  the  slowness 
of  the  disciples  to  tinderstand,  not  so  much 
some  special  words  as  the  Lord  himself.  Ap- 
parently, these  two  thought  their  Jhtster's  de- 
pression was  but  temporary.  Is  it  possible  that 
they  even  wislied  to  reassure  him  and  refresh 
his  minil  by  turning  his  thotights  to  the  glory 
to  which  thev  were  sure  he  was  advancing? 


James  and  John,  the  sons  of  Zebedee. 

They  were  among  the  earliest  discii>le,s,  John 
having  been,  with  Andrew,  one  of  the  lirst 
who  followed  Jesus  (.Johu  i :  :i(>-40),  and  James  hav- 
ing pn)bably  been  brought  by  Jtjhn  to  Jesus  on 
that  same  day  (John  1  :  41,  where  the  form  of 
expression  in  the  Greek  implies  tiiat,  though 
Andrew  was  the  first  to  find  his  brother,  Si- 
mon, and  Ijring  him  to  Jesus,  John  also  quick- 
ly found  his  brother,  James,  and  brought  him 
too).  James  and  John  were  two  of  the  three 
nearest  to  Jesus.  (See  chap.  9  :  2,  etc.)  In  Mat- 
thew the  retjuest  at  this  time  comes  from  their 
mother,  whose  name  was  Salome  (compare  Matt. 
27  :  5()  with  Mark  15  :  40),  and  who  was  probably 
the  sister  of  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus.  (See 
note  on  Mark  3 :  17.)  The  request  was  prob- 
ably suggested  by  the  words  just  spoken,  and 
recorded  only  by  Mattliew  (i9:28) :  "When  the 
Son  of  man  shall  sit  in  tlie  throne  of  his  glory, 
ye  also  shall  sit  uixin  twelve  thrones,  judging 
the  twelve  trilies  of  Israel."  Of  course  they 
took  this  literally,  or  nearly  so ;  and  now  the 
two  disciples,  or  their  mother  for  them,  came 
asking  for  tlie  two  thrones  neare.st  to  the  King 
himself.  Their  persotial  nearness  to  him  in  tlie 
apostlesliip  and  the  early  date  of  their  follow- 
ing may  have  emboldened  them  to  this ;  and 
if  they  were  first-cousins  to  him,  as  seems  jirob- 
able,  this  would  be  another  reason  for  expect- 
ing a  favorable  answer. — Yet,  as  if  they  fearetl 
failure,  they  would  try,  with  a  genuine  liuman 
inil>ii]st',  ti)  ]ilc(lg('  tlic  answer  in  advance.  \^'e 
would  that  thou  shouldest  do  for  us  what- 
soever  we  shall  desire,  or,  rather,  "ask." 
He  gave  no  pleilge,  liut  asked  for  their  request; 
when,  behold,  in  spite  of  all  that  he  had  said, 
now  of  death  and  before  (chap.  9: 35)  of  humility, 
it  was  the  most  ambitious  recpiest  that  could  be 
made — a  request  for  the  two  chief  thrones. 

38.  Personal  loyalty  was  at  the  bottom  of 
the  desire :  they  had  cast  in  their  lot  with  him 
and  with  him  they  desired  to  liave  their  por- 
tion.   Yet  it  was  a  childisli  desire,  an  ambition 


154 


MARK. 


[Ch.  X. 


38  But  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Ye"  know  not  what  ye 
ask.  Can  ye  driuk  of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of?  and 
be  baptized  with  tlie  baptism''  that  1  am  baptized  with  ? 

39  And  they  say  unto  him,  We  can.  .A.nd  Jesus 
said  unto  them,  Ye"  shall  indeed  driuk  of  the  cup'' 
that  I  drink  of:  and  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  bap- 
tized withal,  shall  ye  be  baptized  : 

40  But  to  sit  on  my  right  hand  and  on  my  left  hand, 
is  not  mine  to  give  ;  but  it  shall  be  given  to  them  for 
whom  it  is  prepared.' 


38  But  Jesus  said  unto  them.  Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask. 
Are  ye  able  to  drink  the  cup  that  I  drink?  or  to  be 
baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with? 

39  And  they  said  unto  him.  We  are  able.  And  Jesus 
said  unto  them.  The  cuj)  that  I  drink  ye  Shall  drink  ; 
and  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  withal  shall 

40  ye  be  baptized ;  but  to  sit  on  my  right  hand  or  on  my 
left  hand  is  not  mine  to  give :  but  it  is  /or  tkern  for 


o  James  -4:3 b  Luke  12:  50 c  Matt.  10  :  25  ;  John  17  :  U d  oh.  U  ; 


.e  Malt.  25  :  34 :  Heb.  U  :  16. 


for  the  end  in  profound  ignorance  of  the  way. 
— Ye  kuow  not  what  ye  ask.  It  is  like  the 
reply  of  a  father  to  foolish  children.  When 
addressed  to  men — ambitious  men — how  hu- 
miliating !  yet  in  this  case  how  searchingly  ap- 
propriate !  It  is  not  less  appropriate  with  refer- 
ence to  many  of  our  requests  to  our  Heavenly 
Father ;  for  often  do  we  pray  for  the  end  in  ig- 
norance of  the  way,  aird  often  when  the  way 
would  be  by  no  means  acceptable  to  us. — The 
principle  of  his  rejoinder  is  that  of  Matt.  10  :  24 : 
"  The  disciple  is  not  above  his  master."  There 
is  but  one  way  to  all  the  thrones,  the  way  the 
King  has  taken. — Can  ye  drink  (not  "drink 
of")  the  cup  that  I  drink — L  e.  which  I  have 
to  drink,  and  in  spirit  am  already  drinking,  the 
cup  of  utter  self-sacrifice,  even  unto  martyrdom. 
He  drinks  the  cup,  he  does  not  merely  drink  of 
it ;  and  he  proposes  the  same  to  them. — And  be 
baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  bap- 
tized with?  "that  lam  already  in  spirit  en- 
during '?"  Another  simile  for  the  coming  death, 
omitted  by  Matthew.  The  baptism  is  the  over- 
whelming in  pain  and  death  ;  the  woe  is  to  come 
like  the  rushing  of  the  water  over  the  body  of 
one  whom  John  plunged  in  the  Jordan.  Ter- 
haps  he  could  not  have  found,  within  the  range 
of  their  common  thoughts,  a  stronger  simile  for 
his  purpose;  but  he  seems  to  have  chosen  it 
partly,  also,  because  it  was  a  sacred  simile,  the 
sanctity  of  baptism  having  given  to  the  form  a 
suggestive  character  that  made  it  especially  suit- 
able for  his  use.  When  it  comes  to  this  sym- 
bolic use  of  the  word,  no  one  doubts  that  tlie 
act  which  forms  the  basis  of  the  symbolism  is 
a  complete  immersion.  —  The  two  (juestions 
mean  the  same,  and  the  thought  is,  "  You  ask 
for  thrones :  can  you  die,  and  in  spirit  suffer 
death  before  death,  as  I  do  ?  Can  you  take  up 
the  cross  and  come  after  me,  and  go  to  the 
throne  by  the  way  that  I  take?" 

39.  Their  uiujualified  We  can  contained 
both  good  and  evil.  They  knew  that  they  were 
attached  to  Jesus,  and  it  was  their  loyal  hearts 
that  s])oke.  But  they  knew  not  themselves, 
and  spoke  in  ignorant  assurance.  The  third 
of  the  special  three  put  himself  similarly  on 


record  (Luke  22: 33);  so  that  Peter,  James,  and 
John  are  the  men  to  whom  we  owe  the  most 
remarkable  utterances  of  the  confidence  that  is 
easy  to  an  ignorant  heart.  Yet  the  We  can  of 
James  and  John  and  the  profession  of  Peter 
came  true  in  later  times,  when  they  had  learn- 
ed the  secret  of  their  Master  more  deeply.  Their 
claims  of  victory  were  premature,  but  their 
hearts  already  had  the  secret  of  future  victory. 

The  kindness  of  the  answer  is  something 
wonderful.  There  is  no  tone  or  spirit  of  re- 
buke in  it,  although  there  was  so  much  room 
for  reproof  On  the  surface  it  is  a  denial  of  the 
request — at  least,  it  would  put  an  end  to  all  ex- 
clusive expectations.  Yet  the  prediction  Ye 
shall  indeed  drink  the  cup  that  I  drink 
is  really  a  promise  of  all  that  is  precious  in 
what  they  asked  for.  If  he  could  trutlifully 
say,  "  Y'e  shall  suffer  in  my  spirit,"  the  thrones 
were  assured,  though  no  promise  was  given  of 
the  special  ones  that  were  ambitiously  chosen. 
"To  him  that  overcometh  will  I  grant  to  sit 
with  me  in  my  throne"  (Rev. 3:21).  This  pre- 
diction scarcely  amounts  to  an  announcement 
of  martyrdom  for  each  of  the  two  brothers ;  it 
might  be  fulfilled  by  life  in  the  martyr's  spirit. 
But  James  drank  that  ciip  (Acts  12: 2)  and  John 
suffered,  if  he  did  not  die  (Kev.  1:9).  Both  at- 
tained to  high  seats  at  the  Master's  side,  but 
thrones  how  unlike  all  that  they  were  flunking 
of!  and  by  a  way  how  different  from  all  that 
they  expected !  In  both  aspects  was  the  an- 
swer true,  that  they  knew  not  what  they  asked. 
Tlie  real  thrones  were  more  glorious  than  they 
thought,  and  the  way  was  such  as  they  knew 
not. 

40.  The  remainder  of  the  answer  surjirises 
us;  for,  instead  of  giving  them  some  reason 
why  they  must  beware  of  looking  too  high  or 
expecting  too  much,  he  disclaims  the  power  to 
grant  their  request.  To  sit  on  my  right 
hand  and  on  my  left  hand  is  not  mine 
to  give  :  "but  it  is  for  them  for  whdin  it  hath 
been  prepared."  So,  correctly,  in  the  Revision. 
Matthew  adds  "by  my  Father."— But  (alia)  is 
not  equivalent  to  "  except ;"  as  if  he  had  said, 
"  It  is  not  mine  to  give,  except  to  those  for  whom 


Ch.  X.] 


MARK. 


155 


41  And  when  the  ten  heard  it,  they  began  to  be 
much  displeased  with  .lames  and  .lohu. 

4'Hut\lesus  called  them  to  hiw,  and  sa.th  un  o 
them  YC  know  that  ihey  which  are  accounted  to 
nUeovcr  the  Gentiles  exercise  l..rdslui.  over  them; 
and  their  great  ones  exercise  authority  upon  tlieni 

4-i  lUit  so  shall  it  not  be  amonj^  you  :  but''  whosoe\er 
will  be  L'reat  amoiitr  you,  shall  be  your  minister: 

44  And  whosoevSr^f  you  will  be  the  chiefest,  shall 
be  servant  of  all. 


41  whom  it  hath  been  prepared.  And  when  the  ten 
heard  it,  they  began  to  be  moved  with  indignation 

42  concerning  .lumes  and  .lohu.  And  .lesus  called  them 
to  him,  and  saith  unto  them,  Ye  know  that  they  who 
are  accounted  to  rule  over  the  Gentiles  lord  it  over 
them  •  and  their  great  ones  exercise  authority  over 

43  them.  But  it  is  not  so  among  yo" :  but  whosoever 
would  become  great  among  you,  shall  be  your  'niin- 

44  ister  ■  and  whosoever  would  be  tirst  among  you,  shali 


a  Luke  2i  :  25....i  ch.  9  :  35;  Matt.  20  :  26,  28;  Luke  9  :  48.^1  Or,  servant 


it  hath  been  prepared."  Such  a  translation, 
thougli  sometimes  proposed,  is  inadmissible. 
Two  statements  are  here— that  the  assignment 
of  the  highest  rank  is  the  prerogative  of  the 
Father,  which  reminds  one  of  the  language  of 
Mark  13  :  32,  and  that  the  highest  rank  shall 
be  assigned  by  him  to  those  for  whom  it  has 
been  prepared.  But  who  are  they  for  whom 
the  highest  rank  has  been  prepared  by  the 
Father?  (See  verses  42-44.)  They  are  the  dis- 
ciples who  are  most  like  the  Master.  The  near- 
est thrones  are  prepared  for  the  truest  followers, 
just  as  the  crown  is  prepared  for  tlie  successful 
contestant  (i  Cor.  9 :  24).  Here,  again,  the  last  may 
be  the  first,  and  even  the  chief  apostles  cannot 
be  sure  that  some  servant  of  humbler  name  may 
not  at  tlie  end  be  above  them. 

41.  The  ten— tlie  remainder  of  the  apostolic  i 
V,aiid— began  to  be  much  displeased  with  j 
James  and  John.     Began,  but  were  soon  in-  I 
terruptt'd  ami  lirouglitto  account  by  the  Mas- 
ter.—Displeased.     The  same  word  as  in  verse 
14.     Why  dis]>leased?     Had  they  not  all  been  [ 
questioniitg  who  sliould  be  greatest  (chap. 9:34)? 
and  would  they  not  all  have  been  glad  of  the  i 
places  James  and  Jolin  had  chosen?     It  was 
human  nature:    they  thought  it  very  wrong  j 
when  two  petitioned  for  what  all  would  glad- 
Iv  have  chiimcd. 

"  43.  Jesus  called  them— not  necessarily  j 
^1,0  ten— apart  from  James  and  John ;  this 
word  was  for  all.— First  he  states  the  worldly 
principle  of  greatness— a  princii>le  with  which 
lie  says  they  are  fiimiliar.  Ye  know  that 
they  which  are  accounted  to  rule  over 
the  (Jentiles,  or  "  the  nations  "— i.  e.  tlie  rec- 
ognized ;ind  iiciepted  rulers  of  the  world— ex- 
ercise lordship,  or  "lord  it."  over  them— 
that  is,  over  the  (ieiitiles,  or  nations,  their  sub- 
j(^.ts— and  their  great  ones  exercise  au- 
thority upon  them.  Tliis  is  the  ordinary 
ImiiKui  conception  of  greatness.  Recognized 
greatne-ss  among  the  nations  of  the  world  im- 
pHes  the  exercise  of  dominion  over  men ;  the 
great  ones  lord  it.  This  is  the  ideal  of  great- 
ness and  a  kingdom  which  Jesus  rejected  in  the 
wil<lerness,  and  again  when  the  Jews  became 
his  tempters  (John  6: 15). 


43,  44.  But  so  shall  it  not  be— or,  on 

manuscript  authority,  "it  is  not  so  "—among 
you.     Your  principle  is  not  the  principle  of 
the  world,  and  you  have  your  own  type  of 
greatness  and  your  own  way  of  becoming  great. 
Accordingly,  he  proceeds  to  tell  of  the  Cliristian 
way  of  becoming  great.   The  verbs  in  the  future 
tense  may  best  be  rendered  by  "will"  instead 
of  shall,  for  Jesus  is  telling,  not  what  he  re- 
quires, but  what  a  man  will  do  who  intelli- 
gently  seeks  the  Christian    greatness    in    the 
Christian  way.    Also,  instead  of  whosoever 
will  be   great,  read  "  whosoever  wishes  to 
become  great,"  and,  in  verse  44,  "whosoever 
wishes  to  become  chiefest,"  or  "  tirst."— What, 
now,  is  the  Christian  principle  of  greatness  and 
the  way  by  which  a  wise  Christian  will  seek 
high  rank  ?    The  Christian  greatness  consists  in 
humlile  service ;  and  a  Christian  who  wislics  to 
be  great  will  seek  it,  if  he  seeks  as  a  Christian, 
only  tlirougli  humble  service.— The  desire  for 
greatness  is  here  represented  in   two  degrees, 
I  "  whosoever  wishes  to    become   great  among 
you "   telling  of  the   general  desire    for  em- 
'  inence,  and  "  whosoever  of  you  wishes  to  be- 
come first"  expressing  the  still   higher   desire 
j  for  pre-eminence.     It  is  not  "  the  first,"  as  if  a 
Christian  could  distinctly  set  his  ambition  on 
that:  it  is  "  first  "—that  is,  a  person   of  first 
I  rank,  one  of  tlie  highest.— Observe  particidariy 
'  that  our  Lord  does  not  forisid  or  discourage 
such  desires ;  he  does  not  say  that  there  are  no 
1  lionors  in  his  kingdom  or  bid  us  look   for  a 
dead-level  of  spiritual  equality ;   and  he  does 
not  hint  that  it  is  wrong  to  desire  to  have  a 
I  place  among  the  "  first."    But  he  proceeds  to 
j  tell  how  a  Christian,  if  he  intelligently  adopts 
I  the  Christian  princi]ile,  will  act  on  sucli  a  de- 
I  sire.    Does  he  wish  to  become  great?  he  will  be 
your  minister  (diabtiioK),  attendant,  or  assist- 
i  ant-K  e.  he  will  make  himself  a  helper  to  his 
j  brethren.     Does  his  ambition  reach  higher,  so 
that  he  wishes  to  become  a  man  of  first  rank  ? 
he  will  bow  still  lower,  and  be  the  servant  of 
all,  a  slave  {doulofi)  for  the  service  of  all  to 
whom  he  can  be  useful.     There  is  a  threefold 
climax.     "  First "  is  higher  than  "  great,"  indi- 
1  eating  a  higher  ambition  in  the  aspiring  souL 


156 

MARK. 

[(Jn.  X. 

45  For  even  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be 
tered  unto,  but"  to  minister,  and  to*  give  his 
ransom  for  many. 

minis- 
life  a 

45  be  ^servant  of  all.     For  the  Son  of  man  also  came 
not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to 
give  his  life  a  ransom  lor  many. 

aJobD  13: 

U;  Phil.  2  :  7 

...6  Isa 

63:11 

12;  Dan.  9:  26 

;  2  Cor.  . 

:  21  ;  Gal 

.  3  :  13  ;  1  Tim.  2:6;  Tit.  2  : 

14. 

Gr.  bondservant. 

Slave  (doulos)  is  lower  than  minister,  attendant 
(diakonos),  indicating  a  deeper  humility  as  the 
means  of  reaching  the  higher  honor.  Of  all 
is  broader  than  "  of  you,"  in  your  minister, 
indicating  that  the  deeper  humility  will  seek 
and  find  opportunities  of  wider  as  well  as 
greater  usefulness.  The  higher  one  wishes  to 
rise,  the  lower  will  he  bend  in  brotherly  ser- 
vice, and  the  more  freely  will  he  give  himself 
to  many. — It  may  be  asked  whether  our  Lord's 
teaching  is  not  self-contradictory  here ;  whether, 
in  practice,  we  can  conceive  of  seeking  first  rank 
by  means  of  humility  and'service  ;  whether  the 
two  motives  are  not  incompatible.  Certainly 
they  are  incompatible,  so  long  as  we  hold  the 
worldly  conception  of  thrones  and  rewards. 
But  the  idea  of  greatness  through  any  elevation 
that  would  gratify  vanity  he  has  just  expressly 
ruled  out,  and  has  placed  the  honors  of  the 
kingdom  in  something  else.  The  honor  in 
this  kingdom  consists  in  being  like  the  King, 
and  the  first  rank  in  being  most  like  the  King. 
Whoever  seeks  this  intelligently  v^^ill  seek  it 
exactly  as  Jesus  said,  by  humble  and  loving 
service  to  many.  In  this  view  of  the  matter  it 
is  evident  tliat  the  honors  are  not  altogether  in 
the  future.  Whoever  is  doing  the  service  in 
the  Master's  spirit  is  already  of  high  rank,  al- 
ready on  the  throne.  But  the  aristocracy  in  tlie 
kingdom  is  unconscious.  They  who  belong  to 
it  are  the  last  to  suspect  the  fact,  and  any  who 
may  suppose  themselves   to  belong  to  it  are 

wrong    (Matt.  25  :  37-39). 

45.  Tlie  great  illustration  and  example  is  the 
Christ  himself,  in  whose  glory  the  ambitious 
disciples  were  hoping  to  share.  He  came  to  il- 
lustrate, not  the  human  idea  of  greatness  by 
being  served,  but  the  divine  idea  1)y  serving. 
Tlie  great  God  himself  is  greatest  in  his  help- 
fulness of  love,  and  when  he  came  nearest  to 
men  to  show  them  his  glory  he  came  thus,  in 
the  self-sacrificing  Son  of  man. — Not  to  be 
ministered  unto.  Not  to  "lord  it"  or  "ex- 
ercise autliority  "  over  men,  after  the  manner 
of  tlic  Gentiles,  but  to  minister,  "serve," 
and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many. 
The  extreme  act  of  service.  Compare  the  sim- 
ilar teaching  at  another  time,  in  Luke  22  :  24- 
27,  culminating  in  the  words,  "  I  am  among 
you  as  he  that  serveth,"  and  the  matchless  ob- 
ject-lesson in  John  13  :  1-17 ;  also  Rom.  15  :  1- 
3 ;  Pliil.  2  :  5-11.    In  all  these  passages,  and  in 


many  more  (as  Gal.  6  :  2 ;  2  Cor.  8:1-9;  1  Pet. 
5  :  1-4),  the  footsteps  of  the  Master  are  shown  to 
the  disciples  that  they  may  follow.  The  act  of 
God  in  providing  the  propitiation  for  our  sins, 
and  the  act  of  Christ  in  laying  down  his  life  for 
us,  are  given  as  the  supreme  examples  for  us  in 
1  John  4  :  10, 11 ;  3  :  16.  This  was  our  Saviour's 
way  to  glory :  the  chief  throne  was  prcjiared 
for  the  chief  servant,  and  it  will  be  found  that 
the  king  is  he  who  has  done  the  nu)st  for  his 
brethren.  This  is  the  only  way  by  which  any 
throne  in  his  kingdom  can  be  readied.  (See 
John  12  :  26,  spoken  when  only  death  remained 
to  liim.) — To  give  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many.  A  ransom  is  the  price  paid  for  the  re- 
lease of  prisoners  or  captives.  The  word  for, 
in  the  sense  of  "instead  of"  ("a  ransom  fur 
many"),  is  entirely  approj^iriate,  since  a  ransom 
is  naturally  conceived  of  as  taking  the  place  of 
the  persons  who  are  delivered  by  it,  or  serving 
instead  of  them.  An  idea  of  vicariousness,  or 
action  in  the  place  of  others,  resides  in  this 
word,  as  well  as  in  the  word  ransom  itself. 
The  phra.se  falls  in  with  the  other  language  of 
Scripture  which  represents  the  giving  up  of  liis 
life  as  the  indispensable  means  for  the  deliver- 
ance of  men  from  sin ;  and  of  this  he  was 
thinking  when  he  spoke  of  the  supreme  act 
of  service,  the  giving  of  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many.  In  order  to  minister  thus  to  men  he 
came  into  the  world. — We  often  think  of  his 
way  to  the  cross  as  rich  in  examples  for  us ; 
but  here  the  cross  itself  is  made  the  chief  ex- 
ample. So  Eph.  5  :  2.  Here  we  are  called  to 
the  spiritual  "fellowship  of  his  sufferings." 

46-52.  THE  GIVING  OF  SIGHT  TO  BAR- 
TIM^US.  Parallels,  IMatt.  20  :  29-34  ;  Luke  18  : 
35-43. — The  travelling  company  had  advanced 
through  Persea  and  acro.ss  the  Jordan  to  Jer- 
icho, which  lies  on  the  western  side,  about 
twenty  miles  from  Jerusalem.  It  was  tlien  an 
important  town,  having  been  rebuilt  and  beau- 
tified by  Herod  the  Great,  and  again,  after  it 
had  been  damaged  in  a  rebellion,  by  his  son 
Arclielaus.  Its  long  and  riclily-suggestive  liis- 
tory  may  well  have  rendered  it  peculiarly  in- 
teresting to  our  Lord. — Here  are  two  differences 
between  the  evangelists.  (1)  Matthew  speaks 
of  two  blind  men,  while  Mark  and  Luke  men- 
tion only  one,  to  whom  Mark  gives  the  name 
Bartimpeus.  The  discrepancy  is  unimportant, 
since  one  of  the  blind  men,  if  there  were  two, 


Ch.  X.] 


MARK. 


157 


4')  H  And"  they  came  to  Jericho:  and  as  he  went  out 
of  Jericho  with  "his  disciples  and  a  ^reat  nuinher  of 

Eeople,  blind  liartiuieus,  the  son  of  Tiniciis,  sat  l)y  the 
igliway  side  beggiiiK- 

47  And  when  lie  heard  that  it  was  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, he  hCKan  to  cry  out,  and  say,  Jesus,  thou  Son  of 
David,  have  mercy  on  me. 

4,s  And  many  charged  him  that  ho  should  hold  his 
peace:  hut  he  cried  the  more*  a  great  deal,  Thou  Son 
of  David,  have  luercy  on  me. 


40  And  they  come  to  Jericho:  and  as  he  went  out 
from  Jericho,  with  his  disciples  and  a  great  multi- 
tude, the  son  of  Tiniieus,  Barlimaus,  a  hiind  beggar, 

47  was  sitting  by  the  way  side.  And  when  he  lieard 
that  it  was  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  he  began  to  cry  out, 
and  say,  Jesus,  thou  son  of  David,  have  mercy  on 

48  me.  And  many  rebuked  him,  that  he  should  "hold 
bis  peace :  but  he  cried  out  the  more  a  great  deal, 


a  Malt.  'iO  :  29,  etc. ;  Luke  13  :  33,  etc 6  Jer.  29  :  13 c  Ps.  62  :  12. 


may  easily  liave  been  so  much  better  known 
than  tlie  other,  or  so  nuicli  more  full  of  striking 
faith  as  to  throw  tlie  other  into  the  shade.  (See 
Mark  5  :  2  and  Matt.  8  :  28,  where  a  similar 
question  ari.scs.) — More  important  is  the  differ- 
ence between  Luke,  who  says  that  the  inter- 
view occurred  as  Jesus  was  api)rouching  Jer- 
icho, and  Matthew  and  Mark,  who  say  that  it 
took  place  as  he  was  leaving  the  city  surround- 
ed by  a  great  multitude.     Various  attempts 
have  been  made  to  reconcile  this  difference. 
[Tlie  reader  may  desire  to  look  at  one  of  the 
proposed  methods  of  accounting  for  the  differ- 
ence between  Luke  and  the  other  two  evangel- 
ists as  to  the  point  in  (]uestion.  ("alvin  remarks  : 
"  I  conjecture  that  when  Christ  was  approach- 
ing the  city  the  blind  man  cried  out;  but  as  he 
was  not  heard,  Iiy  reason  of  the  noise,  he  seated 
himself  by  the  way  which  led  out  of  the  city, 
and  w:us  there  at  length  heard  by  Jesus."     EUi- 
cott  favors  this  hyi)otliesis,  with  a  slight  mod- 
ification— viz. :  "  That  the  one  who  is  mentioned 
at  our  Lord's  entry  into  Jericho  as  having  learnt 
from  the  crowd  who  it  was  that  was  coming  I 
into  the  city  was  not  healed  then,  but  in  com-  i 
pany  with  anotiier  sufferer  when  our  Lord  was  1 
leaving  the  city."     Dr.  ILackett  suggests  that  i 
"it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  narrative  that  ! 
the  blind  man  made  his  first  aj^iJcal  to  the  Sav- 
iour  as  the  latter  was  entering  the  city,  but,  for  [ 
some  reason,  was  not  at  first  answered.     The  | 
ne.vt  morning  he  stationed  himself  at  the  gate  i 
through  which  the  Saviour  would  pass  on  leav- 
ing the  city,  and  renewed  his  application  to  j 
him.     All  dithciilty  is  removed  if  we  suppose  ! 
the  words  on  the  morrow  to  be  understood  in  i 
Luke  18  :  38— thus  :  '  And  [on  the  morrow]  he  ' 
cried,'  etc.     So  many  events  are  pa.ssed  over  by  I 
the  evangelists  that  such  ellipses  must  often  be  | 
supi>lied."— A.  H.]  | 

46-48.  The  impression  given  by  Mark  is  dis- 
tinctly that  this  was  the  departure  from  the  city, 
apparently  on  the  way  to  Jerusalem.  The  re- 
vi.''ers  read  correctly,  "the  son  of  Timneus,  Bar- 
timreus,  a  blind  beggar,  was  sitting  by  the  way 
side."  Beggars  in  Palestine  are  innumerable, 
and  blind  beggars  are  to  be  seen  in  great  num- 


bers. Luke  adds  the  graphic  touch  that  he 
heard  the  multitude  passing  and  a.sked  what  it 
meant ;  and  the  answer  was,  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
passeth  by."  As  to  this  man's  name,  bar  is  the 
Aramaics  prefix  for  son;  so  that  the  two  designa- 
tions, Bartimauis  and  son  of  Timanis,  are  identi- 
cal. But  Bartimteus  is  an  unusual  compound, 
Timieus  being  a  Greek  name,  while  the  prefi.v 
bar  is  usually  given  only  to  Aramaic  names. 
Perhaps  this  peculiarity  of  the  conip(juiid  word 
is  the  reason  why  both  forms  came  to  the  writer's 
mind  and  were  written  down  together.  Both 
the  blind  Bartinueus  and  his  father  may  have 
been  well-known  Christians.  (Compare  Mark 
15  :  21,  where  familiar  names  are  i»robably  in- 
troduced in  a  similar  way.) 

47,  48.  " Grcatjaith,"  says  Bengel,  "that 
the  blind  man  addressed  him  as  the  Son  of 
David  whom  the  people  were  proclaiming  to 
him  as  a  Nazarene."  But  the  faith  must  already 
have  been  waiting  in  his  heart.  He  had  begird 
that  tlie  Nazarene  was  the  Son  of  David,  the 
jMessiah,  and  evidently  he  had  believed  it.  In- 
stead of  faith  new-born,  this  apparently  was 
faith  seizing  its  opportunity,  and  doubtless 
growing  strong  by  its  own  act.  Jesus,  thou 
Son  of  David,  have  mercy  on  ine.  Turn 
thy  mercy  hither,  leave  me  not  unblessed.  The 
cry  was  so  loud  and  urgent  as  to  call  out  a  re- 
buke from  many.  Whether  these  were  dis- 
ciples or  not  does  not  api)ear;  but  quite  likely 
the  rebuke  .sprang  as  much  from  contenqit  for 
the  blind  beggar  as  from  any  reverence  or  respect 
for  Jesus. — The  rebuke  was  all  in  vain,  however; 
it  only  made  the  cry  more  loud  and  urgent. 
"  What  right  have  these  men,"  Bartimanis  might 
a-sk,  "  to  stand  between  me  and  him  who  can 
give  me  mj'-  siglit?" 

49,  50.  If  there  were  many  in  the  company 
who  would  have  the  Saviour  leave  a  blind  beg- 
gar crying  for  mercy  by  the  roadside,  there  must 
be  something  done  beyond  the  utterance  of  a 
word  of  healing.  Read,  as  in  the  Revision,  "  And 
Jesus  stood  still,  and  said,  ("all  ye  him."  A  di- 
rect description,  characteristic  of  ]Mark,  of  the  act 
by  which  Jesus  rebuked  the  relnike. — At  once 
the  half-contemptuous  charge  that  he  should 


158 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XI. 


49  And  Jesus  stood  still,  and  commanded  him  to  be 
called.  And  they  call  the  blind  man,  saying  unto 
him,  Pe  of  g«xl  comfort,  rise;  he"  calleth  thee. 

oi)  And  he,  casting*  away  his  garment,  rose,  and 
came  to  .lesus. 

SI  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him.  What 
wilt  thou  that  I  should  do  unto  thee?  The  blind  man 
said  unto  him,  Lord,  that  I  might  receive  my  sight. 

!)2  And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  do  thy  way  ;  thy  faith 
hath  made  thee  whole.  And  immediately  he  received 
his  sight,  and  followed  Jesus  in  the  way. 


49  Thou  son  of  David,  have  mercy  on  me.  And  Jesus 
stood  still,  and  said,  (all  ye  him.  And  they  call  the 
blind  man,  saying  unto  him.  Be  of  good  cheer:  rise, 

50  he  calleth  thee.     And  he,  casting  away  his  garment, 

51  sprang  up,  and  came  to  Jesus.  And  Jesus  answered 
him,  and  said.  What  wilt  thou  that  I  should  do  unto 
thee?     And  the  blind  man  .said  unto  him,  iRabboni, 

52  that  I  may  receive  my  sight.  And  Jesus  said  unto 
him,  lio  thy  way  ;  thy  faith  hath  -made  thee  whole. 
And  straightway  he  received  his  sight,  and  followed 
him  in  the  way. 


CHAPTER    XI, 


AND"*  when   they  came    nigh  to    Jerusalem,  unto 
Bethphage,  and  Bethany,  at  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
he  sendeth  forth  two  of  his  disciples. 


1     And  when  they  draw  nigh  unto  Jerusalem,  unto 
Bethphage  and  Bethany,  at  the  mount  of  Olives,  he 


a  Jobn  U  :  28 6  Ptiil.  3  :  7-8 och.  5  :  34  ;  Matt.  9:  22 d  Matt.  21  :  1,  etc.;  Luke  19  :  29,  etc. ;  John  12:  U,  eto.- 

XX.  16. . . .2  Or,  saved  thee 


hold  his  peace  was  silenced,  and  the  blind 
mail  lieard  the  spirit  of  Jesus  in  the  voices  that 
now  addressed  him ;  but  doubtless  they  were 
new  voice.s,  not  the  same:  f'^iends  of  Jesus  now 
called. — Be  of  good  comfort,  rise  ;  he  call- 
eth thee.  Notice  the  haste  of  hope.  He 
dropped  his  outer  garment  (mantle)  or  threw 
it  back  upon  the  ground  rather  than  stay  to 
wrap  it  around  him — an  unwonted  act  for  a 
blind  man,  who  would  ordinarily  be  most  care- 
ful to  keep  his  garment  within  reach.  Must  he 
not  have  expected  to  see  it  when  he  turned 
back  ?  This  mention  of  the  garment  is  peculiar 
to  Mark,  who  also  says,  as  in  the  Revision,  that 
"he  sprang  up,  and  came  to  Jesus." 

51,  52.  Jesus  had  given  him  this  to  do  on 
his  own  part,  the  coming;  and  now  he  bade 
him  offer  his  request.  Did  not  Jesus  know 
what  he  wanted?  and  yet  the  man  must  ask. 
Lord  ("Rabboni"),  that  I  might  receive  my 
sight.  "  Raliboni,"  or  "  Rabbouni,"  is  used 
only  here  and  at  John  20  :  16.  It  is  sometimes 
taken  to  mean  "  my  teacher;"  but  in  John  20  : 
16  it  is  expressly  rendered  by  "teacher"  {didas- 
knlns).  It  is  an  intensified  form  of  "  Rabbi." — 
The  word  translated  receive  my  sight  strictly 
means  to  see  again,  or  to  recover  sight ;  and  it 
has  sometimes  been  inferred  that  Bartimeeus 
had  not  always  been  blind.  But  the  same  word 
is  used  in  John  9  :  11  of  the  man  who  was  blind 
from  his  birth.  There,  however,  the  use  of  it 
seems  to  rest  upon  the  fact  that  sight  is  a  natural 
endowment  of  man,  and  that  he  who  receives 
it  receives  his  own,  even  though  he  may  never 
have  had  it  before.— The  answer  was  ready; 
literally  it  is,  "  Go ;  thy  faith  hath  saved  thee." 
Wliother  he  meant  merely  hath  made  thee 
whole,  given  thee  thy  sight,  may  jierhaps  be 
doubted.  Did  not  such  faith  as,  his  bring  him 
into  the  circle  of  our  Lord's  full  saving  in- 
fluence? But  prompt  healing  was  included, 
and  he  received  sight  at  once.  Matthew  says 
(not  Mark  or  Luke)  that  the  act  was  performed 


by  a  touch.  All  record  that  the  man  followed 
Jesus.  It  is  in  every  way  probable  that  he  fol- 
lowed Jesus  to  Jerusalem  and  was  near  him  to 
the  end,  "  his  new-found  gift  of  sight  qualifying 
him  to  take  his  place  among  the  eye-witnesses 
of  the  things  that  were  done  in  the  ensuing 
week"  [Plumptre). 

A  parabolic  and  spiritual  meaning  has  always 
been  found  in  this  story,  and  with  good  reason. 
It  must  have  been  intended  as  a  suggestive 
picture  of  spiritual  things.  Such  faith  as  this 
is  what  a  sinner  needs — faith  to  recognize  the 
Saviour  as  mighty  to  save,  whatever  othei's  may 
think  or  say  of  him ;  faith  to  beg  for  mercy ; 
faith  irrepressible  and  persistent ;  faith  to  obey 
liis  call  and  hopefully  come  to  him ;  faith  to 
press  into  his  presence  at  his  bidding  and  i)lead 
afresh  ;  faith  to  take  him  at  his  word  when  he 
speaks  in  mercy,  and  to  glorify  God  and  follow 
Jesus  when  he  has  done  the  saving  work.  No 
less  justly  is  this  taken  as  a  true  and  living  pic- 
ture of  the  attitude  of  our  Saviour  toward  the 
souls  that  cry  out  for  his  saving  help,  so  ready, 
so  wise,  so  mighty  to  save. 


1-11.  THE  MESSIANIC  ENTRANCE  OP 
JESUS  TO  JERUSALEM.  Parallels,  Matt.  21 : 
1-11 ;  Luke  19  :  29-14 ;  John  12  :  12-19.— Here 
we  have  a  fourfold  record.  Mark  now  enters 
upon  the  Sunday,  the  first  day  of  the  week 
within  which  fell  the  day  of  crucifixion.  He 
has  passed  by  the  visit  to  Zacclueus,  in  Jcric'ho, 
and  the  parable  of  the  Ten  Pounds,  uttered  as 
a  preparation  for  the  events  that  were  coming 
at  Jerusalem  (i,uke  i9: 1-27).  On  the  day  before 
this  Sunday — i.  e.  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath — Jesus 
arrived  at  Bethany,  and  was  entertained  in  the 
house  of  Simon  the  leper.  John's  si)ecific  note 
of  time  fully  settles  the  date  of  this  event,  which 
is  narrated  by  Matthew  and  Mark  out  of  its 
proper  place.     (See  note  on  Mark  14  :  3.) 

1.  Bethphage  is  not  certainly  known.  Some 
manuscripts  (and  Tischendorf )  omit  the  name  in 


Ch.  XL] 


MARK. 


159 


2  And  saith  unto  them, Go  your  way  into  the  village 
over  Ufjainst  you:  aud  as  soon  as  ye  be  entered  into  it, 
ye  shall  tind  a  colt  tied,  whereon  never  man  sat;  loose 
him,  aud  bring  him. 


2sendeth  two  of  his  disciples,  and  saith  unto  them, 
lio  your  way  into  the  vi'lage  that  Ls  over  against 
you:  and  straightway  as  ye  enter  into  it,  ye  sliall 
find  a  colt  tied,  whereon  no  man  ever  yet  sat ;  loose 


Hark,  though  it  stands  unquestioned  in  Mat- 
thew and  Luke.  Probably  the  place  was  a 
small  liamlet,  named  from  its  fig  trees.  Its 
location  is  not  definitively  known.  F.  R.  and 
C.  R.  Conder,  Hdiulhouk  of  the  Bible,  p.  326,  say : 
"  It  appears  clear,  from  a  number  of  passages  in 
the  Tahnu.l  (Menakhoth  11.  2),  that  Beth  Phagi 
marked  the  sabbatical  limit  east  of  Jerusalem. 
This  lintit  was  called  the  'wall  of  Bethphagi ' 
(Tal.  Bab.  Menakliotli  7Sh),  and  the  position  thus 


so,  very  likely  John  was  tlie  other,  as  in  Luke 
22:8. 

2.  The  village  over  against  you.  "The 
road  from  Bethany  to  Jerusalem,  as  it.  pas.sed 
along  the  Mount  of  Olives,  encountered  a  deep 
valley,  and  made  a  long  detour  round  the  head 
of  the  valley  to  avoid  the  descent  and  ascent. 
A  short  foot-path,  however,  led  directly  across 
the  valley,  and  it  was  probably  from  the  i)oint 
where  this  parted  from  the  road  that  the  disci- 


MOrNT    OF   OLIVES. 


indicated  would  be  two  thousand  cubits  from 
the  east  wall  of  Jeru.salem.  The  distance  meas- 
ures to  tlie  present  village  of  Kefr  et-Tor  (named 
from  the  mountain),  on  Olivet,  whidi  M.  Cler- 
mont Oanneau  thorefnro  ))ri)]vises  to  identify 
witli  Bctliphage." — Bethphase  means  "  house 
of  unripe  figs;"  Bethany,  "  lunise  of  date-s." — 
John  tells  us  of  a  great  nuiltitudc  streaming  out 
of  Jerusalem  to  meet  Jesus,  drawn  by  the  ex- 
citement over  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus. 
Doubtless  it  wa.s  when  this  new  throng  was 
about  to  join  him  that  he  arranged  for  the  tri- 
umphal entrj'.  Of  the  two  disciples  whom 
he  sent,  the  particularity  of  Mark's  narrative 
leads  us  to  suspect  that  Peter  was  one.  If 
11 


pies  were  sent  for  the  ass  to  the  village  on  the 
opposite  side  where  tlie  i^ath  again  met  the  road 
— a  site  still  marked  by  ruins  "  (Gardiner's  (ireek 
Ilarmni))/,  p.  172).  If  this  is  to  be  accepted,  doubt- 
less the  Lord  and  his  company  had  already  pass- 
ed the  village,  and  the  discii)les  were  sent,  not 
forward,  but  back  by  the  short  foot-jiath,  to 
bring  an  animal  that  Jesus  had  seen  as  he 
pa.ssed  it.  Having  a  Messianic  entrance  in 
mind,  he  would  notice  tlie  animal,  while  his 
companions  might  not. — A  colt.  Not  furtlier 
described ;  but  that  it  was  the  colt  of  an  ass 
would  be  understood. — Whereon  never  man 
sat.  For  cases  of  beasts  of  burden  that  had 
never  worked  being  used  for  sacred  purposes, 


IGO 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XI. 


3  And  if  any  man  say  unto  you,  Why  do  ye  this,  say 
ye  that  tlie  Lord  hath  need"  of  him  ;  and  straightway 
he  will  send  him  hither. 


3  him,  and  bring  him.  And  if  any  one  say  unto  you, 
\\  hy  do  ye  this?  say  ye.  The  Lord  hath  need  of 
him;    and   straightway   he   'will    send    him  "back 


-1  Gr.  aendech 2  Or,  again 


see  Num.  19  :  2 ;  Deut.  21 :  3 ;  1  Sam.  6  :  7.  Ac- 
cording to  Matthew's  more  precise  record,  the 
mother  of  the  colt  was  tied  and  the  colt  was 
with  her.  The  disciples  brought  both  and 
spread  their  clothes  upon  both,  uncertain  which 

NORTH 


self,  whom  the  owner  knew  to  be  passing.  His 
disciples  called  him  "Lord"  in  a  special  sense, 
and  at  this  moment  he  was  openly  performing 
a  kingly  act.  The  owner  may  have  been  a 
friend.     The  revisers  accept  (with  Tischcndorf ) 


p^!]^^^^ 


£0  40  eo  BO  too 


I      I      I      I      I 


JEWISH  ELLS. 


SOUTH 


PLAN   OF  THE  TEMPLE. 


Jesus  would  mount :  and  "  they  set  him  there- 
on," or  "he  sat  upon  them" — i.  e.  upon  the 
clothes  thus  spread  upon  the  colt 
3.  The  Lord  hath  need   of  him,  Lord 

meaning,  possibly,  Jehovah,  indicating  that  the 
animal  was  claimed  for  a  religious  use  in  the 
service  of  God ;  more  probably  for  Jesus  him- 


the  extremely  fresh  and  beautiful  reading,  "  The 
Lord  hath  need  of  him ;  and  straightway  he  will 
send  him  back  hither;"  literally,  "sendeth  him 
hither  again."  The  reading  is  well  supported, 
and  there  is  a  lifelike  quality  about  it  that 
strongly  commends  it  as  a  true  bit  of  re- 
membrance.    The  Lord  offered    assurance  to 


Ch.  XI.] 


MARK. 


l&l 


4  And  they  went  their  way,  and  found  the  colt  tied 
by  the  door  without,  iu  a  place  where  two  ways  met ; 
and  they  loose  him. 

5  And  certain  of  them  that  stood  there  said  unto 
them.  What  do  ye,  loosing  the  colt? 

()  And  they  said  unto  them  even  as  Jesus  had  com- 
manded: and  they  let  them  go. 

7  And  they  brought  the  colt  to  Jesus,  and  cast  their 
garments  on  him  ;  and"  he  sat  upon  him. 

8  And  many  spread  their  garments  in  the  way;  and 
others  cut  down  branches  otf  the  trees,  and  strawed 
them  iu  the  way. 

9  And  they  that  went  before,  and  they  that  followed, 
cried,  saying,  Hosanua;  Blessed'  /*•  he  that  cometh  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  : 

10  Blessed  be  the  kingdom"^  of  our  father  David,  that 
cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord :  Hosanna  in  the 
highest.'^ 


4  hither.  And  they  went  away,  and  found  a  colt 
tied   at   the  door  without  in  the  open  street ;   and 

5  they  loose  him.  And  certain  of  them  that  stood 
there  said  unto  them,  What  do  ye,  loosing  the  eolt .' 

6  And  they  said  unto  them  even  as  .lesus  had  said: 

7  and  they  let  them  go.  And  they  bring  the  colt  unto 
Jesus,  and  cast  on  him  their  garments;  and  he  sat 

8  upon  him.  And  many  .spread  their  garments  upon 
the  way  ;  and  others  'branches,  which  they  had  cut 

9  from  the  fields.  And  they  that  went  before,  and 
they  that   followed,  cried,  Hosanua ;   Blessed   Ls  he 

10  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord :  Blessed  i*  the 
kingdom  that  cometh,  the  kiiigUum  of  our  father 
David  :  Hosanua  iu  the  highest. 


aZech.  9  :9....i  Ps.  118:  26 c  Isa.  9:7;  Jer.  33:15 d  Ps.  148  : 1. 1  Gr.  layers  of  leaves. 


the   owner  that   his  property  should   be    re- 
turned. 
4-6.  In  a  place  where  two  ways  met 

(pecnhar   to    IShirk)   is  a  paraphrase   founded 
on  the  Latin  Vulgate  (bivlu),  and  not  on  the 
Greek.     The  original  phrase  is  obscure.     "  On 
the   way  round"    resembles    it,   but    perhaps 
usage  justifies  the  rendering  of  the  revisers, 
"in  the  open  street."    Farrar  makes  it  mean 
"in  the  passage  round  the  house" — i.  e.  tied 
up  at  the  back  of  tlie  house ;  but  tliis  scarcely 
goes  well  with  by  the  door.     That  we  can- 
not recover  the  precise  allusion  occasions  no 
difRctilty.    Alexander  says  truly,  "  The  very 
obscurity  of  the  expression  serves  to  show 
that  it  was  not  a  subsequent  embellishment, 
but  the  vivid  recollection  of  an  eye-witness." 

7.  Their  outer  garments  made  a  covering 
for  the  animal,  on  which  he  took  his   seat. 
Mark  and  Luke  make  no  allusion  to  proi)h- 
ecy,  but  Matthew  and  John  cite  Zech.  9:9; 
and  there  is  no  dotibt  that  Jesus  was  inten- 
tionally acting  in  fulfilment  of  tliat  predic- 
tion.   To  enter  Jerusalem  riding  on  an  ass 
was  expressly  to  declare  himself  the  promised 
King  of  Isniel.     Distinctly  foreknowing  and 
foretelling  his  own  rejection  (Mark  lo :  33, 34),  and 
perceiving  that  the  time  was   now  and  the 
place  Jerusalem,  he  would  not  fail  to  make 
his  claim  to  the  Messiahship  openly  and  un- 
mistakably in  the  very  terms  of  projjhecy. 
lie  had  not  yet  been  recognized  as  the  spirit- 
ual King  of  Israel ;   now  he  would  declare 
himself  in  such  a  way  that  his  claim  could 
not  be  misunderstood,  and  would  be  cither 
recognized  or  rejected  as  the  Messiah.    Did  they 
say,  "  What  a  King !    Riding  on  an  ass,  the  sym- 
bol of  peace!     How  shall  this  man  save  us?" 
He  would  answer  in  the  words  of  Zechariah. 
Such  was  the  King  to  be,  "  meek,  and  having 
salvation." 

8-10.  For  the  moment  he  was  recognized. 
11 


As  tlie  Messiah  the  people  hailed  him,  carpet- 
ing the  road  before  him  witli  their  garments 
and  with  branches  off  the  trees.  Read,  as 
in  the  Revision,  "And  many  spread  their  gar- 
ments upon  the  way ;  and  others  branches, 
which  they  had  cut  from  the  fields."  Perfectly 
accordant  with  Matthew  and  Luke,  but  beati- 
tifuUy  fresh  and  graphic.    The  multitude  cast 


itself  about  him  before  and  beEiiid  and  broke 
forth  into  song,  in  the  very  spirit  of  Zech.  9:9: 
"  Rejoice  greatly,  O  datighter  of  Zion  !" — Ho- 
sanna. Literally,  "Save  now" — /.  e.  "(Jod 
bless  him!  God  save  tlie  King!" — Blessed 
is  he  that  cometh  in  the-  name  of  the 
Lord.      Quoted  from   Ps..  118  :.2(3..    Tlie  re- 


162 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XI. 


11  And  Jesus  entered  into  Jerusalem,  and  into  the 
temple :  and"  when  he  had  looked  round  about  upon 
all  things,  and  now  the  even-tide  was  come,  he  went 
out  untol'ethany  with  the  twelve. 

12  li  And**  ou  the  morrow,  when  they  were  come  from 
Eethany,  he  was  hungry  : 

la  Aiid  seeing  a  tig  tree  afar  off,  having  leaves,  he 
came,  if  haply  he  might  find  any  thing  thereon :  and 
when  he  came  to  it,  he  found  nothing"^  but  leaves;  for 
the  time  of  tigs  was  not  yet. 


11  And  he  entered  into  Jerusalem,  into  the  temple; 
and  when  he  had  looked  round  about  upon  all 
things,  it  being  now  eventide,  he  went  out  unto 
Bethany  with  the  twelve. 

12  And  on  the   morrow,  when  they  'were  come  out 

13  from  Bethany,  he  hungered.  And  seeing  a  fig  tree 
afar  oft'  having  leaves,  he  came,  if  haply  he  might 
find  anything  thereon  :  and  when  he  came  to  it,  he 
found  nothing  but  leaves ;  for  it  was  not  the  season 


a  Zeph.  1  :  1'2 ;  Ezek.  8  : 


..6  Matt.  '21  :  18,  etc cisa.  5  :  7. 


visers  correctly  omit  in  the   name   of  the 

Lord  in  verse  10,  and  translate,  "  Blessed  is  the 
kingdom  that  cometh,  the  kingdom  of  our  father 
David."  This  was  a  positive  recognition  of  him 
as  bringing  in  a  kingdom,  and  of  the  kingdom 
as  the  promised  kingdom  of  David ;  a  strictly 
Messianic  tribute. — Hosanua  in  the  high- 
est— not  "  in  the  highest  degree,"  but  "  in  the 
highest  regions" — i.  e.  in  heaven.  "  God  bless 
him  in  heaven,  and  send  the  blessing  on  him 
here!"  Equivalent  substantially,  though  not 
strictly,  to  "God  in  heaven  bless  him!"  This 
was  the  Messianic  "  God  save  the  King !" 

Thus  the  King  received  the  Messianic  ho- 
mage at  the  gate  of  his  royal  city,  though  doubt- 
less it  was  ignorant  and  carnal  homage.  Even 
the  most  intelligent  did  not  know  what  his 
kingdom  really  was. — We  cannot  repress  the 
inquiry,  What  would  have  happened  if  the 
Jewish  people  had  received  their  King?  We 
camiot  answer  it  definitely,  but  we  must  not 
think  that  the  purpose  of  salvation  would  have 
been  defeated. — Luke  adds  the  remonstrance 
of  the  Pharisees  against  the  loud  songs  of 
praise,  and  our  Lord's  reply ;  also  the  match- 
less story  of  his  tears  over  Jerusalem,  in  view 
of  the  terrible  future  (i9:39-m).  Matthew  tells 
of  the  commotion  in  the  city  when  he  had 
entered,  the  inquiry,  "Who  is  this?"  and  the 
weakening  of  the  popular  testimony  to  "  this 
is  the  prophet  Jesus,  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee," 
in  which  there  was  perhaps  some  provincial 
pride  on  the  part  of  Galilfean  strangers  in  the 
city.  Prom  the  commotion  and  inquiry,  it  is 
plain  that  Jerusalem  was  in  no  mood  of  ac- 
ceptance. The  royal  city  had  no  throne  for  its 
King.  He  came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own 
received  him  not. 

11.  Mark  alone  follows  him  to  the  temple. 
(See  note  on  verse  15.)  But  what  a  conclusion 
for  the  Messianic  entrance  to  the  royal  city ! 
He  looked  round  about  upon  all  things, 
and  at  evening  went  out  unto  Bethany. 
A  lame  and  impotent  conclusion  it  may  well 
have  seemed.  One  must  imagine  his  friends 
walking  out  with  him  at  evening  bitterly  per- 
plexed. They  had  tlieir  national  hopes,  of  tlie 
carnal  kind,  wliich  the  event  of  the  morning 


must  have  greatly  encouraged ;  but  he  had  en- 
tered the  city  and  done  nothing. — Notice  the 
self-control  of  Jesus  in  never  being  driven  a 
step  beyond  his  own  purpose  by  any  expec- 
tations of  his  friends. 

12-19.  THE  FRUITLESS  FIG  TREE 
BLIGHTED  AND  THE  TEMPLE  CLEANSED. 
Parallel,  Matt.  21  :  12-22.— These  are  the  events 
of  Monday  and  of  Tuesday  morning.  It  is  im- 
possible here  to  combine  the  narrative  of  Mark 
with  that  of  Matthew  and  Luke  without  in- 
verting the  order  of  one  or  the  other.  The  dif- 
ference respecting  the  fig  tree  is  but  slight, 
Matthew  compendiously  placing  together  the 
condemnation  of  the  tree  and  the  discovery 
that  it  was  withered ;  while  Mark  places  the 
condemnation  on  the  morning  of  Monday 
and  the  discovery  on  the  morning  of  Tuesday. 
Doubtless,  Mark's  narrative  is  tlie  exact  one; 
Lttke  omits  the  incident.  The  difference  is 
greater  respecting  the  cleansing  of  the  temple. 
From  Matthew  and  Luke  we  should  infer  that 
this  work  was  done  on  the  day  of  the  Mes- 
sianic entrance;  while  Mark  expressly  places 
it  on  the  day  following.  Opinions  differ  as  to 
which  order  is  to  be  followed.  Farrar  {Life  of 
Christ,  2.  204,  note)  gives  reasons  for  following 
Matthew  ;  and  no  doubt  the  story  in  Matthew 
is  more  dramatic  and  imjiressive,  the  disap- 
pointment after  the  triumphal  entrance  having 
no  place  in  it.  But  the  indications  of  time  in 
Mark  are  extremely  distinct  and  positive — far 
more  so  than  those  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 
Mark  is  also  habitually  more  exact  in  arrange- 
ment. On  the  whole,  the  order  of  ^lark  has 
the  stronger  evidence,  and  is  to  be  followed. 
According  to  it,  Jesus  souglit  and  condemned 
the  fig  tree  on  Monday  morning,  revisited  and 
cleansed  the  temple  on  Monday,  went  out  to 
Bethany  Monday  night,  and,  returning  on 
Tuesday  morning,  found  tlic  tree  withered. 

12,  13.  On  the  morrow.  According  to 
Matthew,  it  was  in  the  early  morning. — He 
was  hungry,  and  so  it  was  for  himself  that 
he  sought  food,  not  for  his  companions,  so  far 
as  we  know.  Tlie  principle  of  ]\Iatt.  4  :  4  al- 
ways governed  him :  no  miracle  for  himself. 
He  would  seek  food  like  any  other  human 


Ch.  XI.] 


MARK. 


163 


14  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  it,  No  man  eat 
fruit  of  thee  hereafter  for  ever.  And  his  disciples 
beard  ('. 

l)  «I  And"  they  come  to  Jerusalem:  and  Jesus  went 
into  the  temple.'and  began  to  cast  out  them  that  sold 
and  bought  in  the  temple,  and  overthrew  the  tables 
of  the  moneychangers,*  and  the  seats  of  them  that 
sold  doves ; 

It)  And  would  not  suffer  that  any  man  should  carry 
any  vessel  through  the  temple. 


14  of  figs.  And  he  answered  and  said  unto  it,  No  man 
eat  fruit  from  thee  henceforward  for  ever.  And  hia 
disciples  heard  it 

15  Anil  they  coin^  to  Jerusalem :  and  he  entered  into 
the  temple,  and  began  to  cast  out  them  that  sold 
and  them  that  bought  in  the  temple,  and  overthrew 
the  tables  of  the  luoney-changers,  and  the  seats  of 

IG  them  that  sold  the  doves ;  and  he  would  not  sutler  that 
any  man  should  carry  a  vessel  through  the  temple. 


a  Matt,  n  :  12,  etc. ;  Luke  19  :  45,  etc. ;  John  2  :  14,  etc 5  Deut.  14  :  25,  26. 


bt'injj;.  — Seeing  a  fig  tree.  In  Matthew, 
"one  fig  tree" — i.  e.  a  .'solitary  tree.— Having 
leaves.  Peculiar  to  Mark.  It  was  this  fact 
that  drew  Iiini  to  it.— If  haply  he  might  find 
any  thing  thereon.  The  fig  tree  often  pro- 
tlnee.s  fruit  as  early  as  leaves,  or  even  earlier 
(Thomson,  The  Land  and  the  Book,  1.538);  so 
that  the  show  of  leaves  justified  his  search  for 
fruit,  although  the  time  of  figs  was  not  , 
yet.  It  was  early  even  for  the  earliest  figs;  | 
yet  they  might  already  have  ripened.  Thom-  j 
son  says  tliat  he  has  plucked  them  in  May  far 
in  the  north,  where  vegetation  is  at  leiist  a 
month  later  than  at  Jerusalem.  It  was  now 
the  beginning  of  April ;  and  upon  a  leafy  tree, 
in  some  warm  spot  on  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
it  was  not  unreasonable  to  look  for  the  first 
ripening  fruit.  So  there  is  no  just  charge 
against  our  Saviour,  as  if  he  were  looking  for 
what  he  could  not  expect  to  find  and  offended 
because  he  did  not  find  it. 

14.  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto 
it.  As  if  l)y  its  fair  au'l  decei)tive  pnifessiou 
tlie  tree  had  spoken.  It  had  indeed  ma<le  reply 
to  his  expectations  by  disappointing  them,  and 
now  he  replied  in  turn. — The  doom  of  the  tree 
wiis  expressed  in  terms  corresponding  to  his 
disai)pointment.  The  penalty  of  fruit Ic.ssness 
was  to  ])e  fruitlessiu'ss.  No  man  eat  fruit  of 
thee  hereafter  for  ever.  The  condemnation 
of  tli'j  tree  was  not  an  act  of  anger  or  of  ill- 
temper.  It  was  a  symbolic  action,  an  acted  par- 
able. In  idea,  though  not  exactly  in  form,  it  was 
the  paraljle  of  Luke  13  :  G-9  in  action.  Israel  was 
tlie  fruitless  fig  tree,  or  the  richly-privileged  vine- 
yard that  brought  forth  wild  grapes  (isa.  5:i-7). 
Yet,  tliough  fruitless,  Israel  was  full  of  profes- 
sion, false  show  of  godliness.  The  leaders  of 
ilie  nation  were  the  most  religious  of  men,  yet 
the  least  acceptable  to  him  who  sought  the 
genuine  fruit  of  goodness.  The  people  had 
jiroved  themselves  unfit  to  receive  their  true 
King.  Leaves  without  fruit,  promise  without 
fulfilment — this  was  the  character  of  Israel; 
therefore  doom  must  come.  This  fact  was  to 
be  revealed  finally  and  most  clearly  in  that 
day's  work,  and  to  form  tlie  burden  of  liis 
prophetic  discourse  at  niglitfall.     Full  of  these 


thoughts,  Jesus  saw  in  the  false  promise  of  the 
tree  a  living  jiicture  of  the  terrible  truth,  and 
used  it  for  illustration.  The  fruit le.ssness  of  the 
tree  should  be  its  ruin.  The  symbolic  act  would 
be  plain  to  beholders  who  were  familiar  with 
the  prophets.  (See  Ezek.  17  :  24 ;  Hos.  9  :  10 ; 
Joel  1:7;  Mic.  7  : 1-4.)— His  disciples  heard 
it.  Peculiar  to  Mark,  and  corresponding  to  his 
recognition  of  the  interval  between  the  two 
parts  of  the  event.  Exactly  when  the  tree 
withered  we  cannot  tell.  The  "  immediately" 
of  Matthew  is  to  be  taken  relatively,  and  not 


to  mean  tliat  tlie  tree  withered  before  their 
eyes.  We  only  know  that  it  was  done  before 
the  next  morning. 

15,  16.  Tliis  was  the  second  purifying  of  the 
temple.  (For  the  similar  event,  see  Jolin  2  : 
13-17.)  The  work  probably  was  begun  early 
in  the  day.  This  was  tlie  fruit  of  the  looking 
"  rouml  upon  all  things"  of  the  day  before. 
Tliat  was  the  preliminary  inspection  ;  this,  the 
work  that  w;is  found  necessary.  Both  were 
regal  acts,  though  the  former  did  not  aiipear  so. 
It  was  the  act  of  the  King  to  inspect  his  capital, 
as  well  as  to  purify  it.  Just  three  years  earlier, 
at  the  pa.s,sover,  he  had  done  the  same  work, 
claiming  unequalled  authority  at  the  beginning 
of  his  ministry  as  at  the  end ;  but  the  intru- 
sions had  been  renewed.    Oxen  and  sheep  (for 


164 


MARK. 


[Ch.  xr. 


17  And  he  taught,  saying  unto  them,  Is  it  not  writ- 
ten," My  house  shall  he  called  of  all  nations  the  house 
of  prayer?  but  ye  have  made  it  a  den'  of  thieves 

Irs  And  the  scribes  and  chief  priests  heard  it.,  and 
sought  how  they  might  destroy  him :  for  they  feared 
him,  because  all  the  people  was  astonished'^  at  his 
doctrine. 

19  And  yvhen  even  was  come,  he  went  out  of  the  city. 


17  And  he  taught,  and  said  unto  them,  Is  it  not  written, 
Wy  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  i)rayer  for  all 
the  nations?  but  ye  have  made  it  a  den  of  robbers. 

18  And  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes  heard  it,  and 
sought  how  they  might  destroy  him :  for  they  feared 
him,  for  all  the  multitude  was  astonished'  at  his 
teaching. 

19  And  'every  evening  ^he  went  forth  out  of  the  city. 


ilsa.  56:  1....6  Jer.  7  :  11 cch.  1  :  22;  Matt.  7  :  28; 


Luke  4  :  32. 

read  they. 


-I  Gr.  whenever  evening  came. ...2  Some  ancient  authorities 


sacrifice)  are  not  mentioned  now  as  tlien,  but  are 
probably  included  in  the  traffic  of  them  that 
sold  and  bought. — Moneychangers,  men 

who  toolf  the  foreign  money  of  worsliippers  from 
otlier  lands,  but  especially  the  Roman  money 
in  general  use,  and  gave  the  half  shekel  that 
was  required  for  the  temple-tax.  —  Doves. 
Literally,  "the  doves;"  so  familiar  to  fre- 
quenters of  the  temple  as  to  be  thus  spoken 
of.  They  were  the  offerings  of  the  poor.  (See 
Lev.  12  :  6-8.)  At  the  presentation  of  our  Lord 
himself  in  the  temple  this  was  the  offering 
(Luke  2: 24).  When  the  temple  was  cleansed  be- 
fore, tlie  dove-sellers  were  only  ordered  out  (John 
2 :  16),  not  driven  out ;  but  now  their  seats 
were  overturned,  like  the  tables  of  the  money- 
changers, as  if  in  sharper  indignation  at  their 
daring  to  return. — The  place  of  the  traffic  was 
one  of  the  courts,  probably  the  court  of  the 
Gentiles.  The  excuse,  doubtless,  was  that  this 
was  far  less  sacred  than  the  inner  temple,  and 
thus  it  became  easy  to  treat  it  entirely  like  un- 
consecrated  ground.  But  to  Jesus  even  the 
courts  of  the  Lord's  house  were  sacred — too 
sacred  to  be  profaned  by  traffic.  This  was  not 
"only  a  court"  to  him:  it  was  a  part  of  the 
house  of  God.— Should  carry  any  vessel 
through  the  temple — ;'.  e.  any  of  the  various 
implements  of  traffic.  Very  likely  (as  Plump- 
tre  supposes)  they  made  this  court  a  short  cut 
from  one  part  of  the  city  to  another. — There  is 
no  mention  of  any  assistance  in  driving  the 
men  out,  from  the  disciples  or  any  otliers.  On 
the  previous  occasion  he  made  a  scourge  for  liis 
own  use,  but  none  is  mentioned  now.  In  the 
fact  that  he  was  able  to  drive  them  out,  the 
fact  that  they  retired  before  him,  we  have  a 
most  impressive  i>icture  of  his  person,  alive 
with  intense  emotion,  glowing  with  the  ardor 
of  holiness,  consumed  by  the  zeal  of  God's 
house.  Such  a  scene  affords  us  some  concep- 
tion of  the  immense  personal  power  of  which 
he  must  have  been  the  jiossessor. 

17.  He  taught,  saying  unto  them.  This 
is  only  an  extract  from  .larger  teacliing.  Ap- 
parently he  made  the  defilement  and  cleansing 
of  the  temple  the  te.xt  for  discourse.— My  house 
shall  be  called  of  all  nations  the  house 
of  prayer.     More  exactly,  as  in  the  Revision, 


"  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  the  nations."  The 
quotation  is  an  exact  one  from  the  Septuagint 
version  of  Isa.  56  :  7.  Especially  appropriate  in 
the  court  of  the  Gentiles.  God  meant  that  Gen- 
tiles— i.  e.  men  of  all  nations — should  find  here 
a  sacred  place,  a  house  of  prayer.  This  inten- 
tion, of  a  wider  than  national  interest  in  the 
sanctity  and  preciousness  of  the  temple,  was 
recognized  in  the  prayer  of  Solomon  at  the  ded- 
ication of  the  first  temple  in  a  petition  of  great 
breadth  and  beauty  (i  Kings  8: 41-43),  and  became 
prominent  in  the  teachings  of  the  iirophets.  It 
is  especially  prominent,  together  with  its  pro- 
phetic analogues,  in  the  latter  jsortion  of  Isaiah. 
The  popular  idea  of  the  exclusiveness  of  the 
old  covenant  is  a  somewhat  exaggerated  idea. — 
In  contrast  to  the  holy  and  gracious  intent  of 
God,  see  wliat  the  temple  is !  Ye  have  made 
it  a  den  of  thieves.  This  is  far  too  weak  a 
phrase.  "  Den  of  robbers  "  is  right,  and  the 
thought  is  almost  like  that  of  "  murderers'  cave." 
The  denunciation  is  an  allusion  to  Jer.  7  :  11 : 
"  Is  this  house,  which  is  called  by  my  name, 
become  a  den  of  robbers  in  your  eyes  ?  Behold, 
even  I  have  seen  it,  saith  the  Lord."  For  that 
long-continued  desecration  of  holy  things  there 
was  heavy  punishment ;  and  Jesus  intimated 
that  the  men  of  his  time  had  placed  themselves 
where  their  fathers  were  in  bold  sin  and  in  ex- 
posure to  a  fearful  doom.  No  d(3ubt  he  meant 
to  condemn  not  only  the  traffic  in  the  temple, 
but  the  fraud  that  went  with  it,  and,  still  more, 
tlie  general  inchfference  to  God's  true  claims  by 
which  the  desecration  was  rendered  possible. 

18.  Here  Matthew  adds  that  the  blind  and 
the  lame  came  to  him  in  the  temple  and  were 
healed,  and  that  the  children  sang  his  praises. 
In  Mark  his  popularity  is  the  reason  why  the 
plots  against  liim  are  carried  forward  ;  in  Luke, 
it  is  that  ver>'  pojiularity  that  defeats  the  pur- 
pose of  the  plotters.  Both  are  true,  and  there 
is  no  contradiction.  His  enemies  began  to  fear 
that  he  might  be  taken  as  the  King  of  Israel, 
after  all,  and  the  very  fact  that  there  seemed  to 
be  reason  to  fear  it  increased  their  difficulties. — 
Astonished  at  his  doctrine,  or  "teaching." 
Another  hint  of  considerable  unrecorded  work. 

19.  The  day  ended  with  his  withdrawing 
again  to  Bethany  (so  Matthew),  where  his  home 


Ch.  XI.] 


MARK. 


165 


20  IT  And  in  the  morning  as  they  passed  by,  they 
saw  the  fig  tree  dried  ii|>  IVum  the  roots. 

21  And  I'eter,  calling  to  remembrance,  saith  unto 
him,  Master,  behold,  the  tig  tree  which  thou  cursedst 
is  withered  away .' 

22  And  Jesus,  answering,  saith  unto  them,  Have 
faith  in  God. 

2:i  I'"or  verily  I  say  unto  you.  That  whosoever"  shall 
say  unto  this  mountain,  I?e  iliou  removi'd,  and  be  thou 
cast  into  the  .sea;  and  shall  not  doubt  in  bis  heart,  but 
shall  believe  that  those  things  which  he  saith  shall 
come  to  pass ;  he  shall  have  whatsoever  he  saith. 


20  And  as  they  pa.ssed  by  in  the  morning,  they  saw 

21  the  tig  tree  witliered  away  from  the  roots.  And 
Peter  calling  to  reiiiembrance  saith  unto  liini.  Rabbi, 
behold,  the  tig  tree  which  thou  cursedst  is  withered 

22  away.     And  Jesus  answering  saith  unto  them,  Have 

23  faith  in  (i(xl.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  VVho.soever 
shall  say  unto  this  mountain,  Be  thou  taken  up  and 
cast  into  the  sea;  and  shall  not  doubt  in  his  heart, 
but  shall  believe  that  what  he  saith  cometh  to  pass; 


a  Matt.  17  :  20;  Luke  17  :  6. 


was,  doubtless,  in  the  house  of  Martha.  It  had 
been  a  Messianic  day ;  but  Messianic  days  were 
fraufjjht  with  threatening. 

20,  21.  Here  I)egins  the  record  of  Tuesday, 
whicli  e.vtends  (if  we  include  with  the  day  the 
evening,  according  to  our  way  of  reckoning) 
to  the  end  of  chap.  13.  The  other  records  of 
the  day  are  Luke,  chaps.  20,  21,  and  Matthew, 
21  :  20-25,  46.  This  was  the  last  day  of  his 
])ublic  ministry.  Of  no  other  day  have  we  so 
full  a  record,  and  none  that  we  know  of  was 
more  significant  in  his  personal  history.  Now 
came  the  great  decisive  coiitiit't,  in  which  his 
enemies  were  openly  woi"sted,  one  after  another, 
and  driven  to  the  desperation  of  hatred. — But 
first,  on  the  way  to  the  city,  they  observed  the 
blighted  tree.  Dried  up  from  the  roots.  It 
was  no  mere  injury  or  weakening,  no  withering 
of  the  foliage;  the  tree  was  destroyed  and 
already  ruined. — And  Peter,  calling  to  re- 
membrance. Peculiar  to  Mark,  and  doubt- 
less a  j)ersi)nal  reminiscence  of  Peter. — Yet  here, 
as  elsewhere,  he  uttered  the  general  thought. 
Which  thou  cursedst — ('.  e.  which  thou  didst 
devote  to  evil.  Beware  of  associating  with  the 
word  in  the  least  degree  the  idea  of  profanity. 
Tlie  ordinary  name  for  this  act,  "  the  cursing 
of  the  lig  tree,"  is  an  unfortunate  one.  To 
modern  ears  it  suggests  strong  language,  even 
profane  language,  and  improper  feeling;  where- 
as the  language  was  moderate  and  the  feeling 
wa.s  right.  "Blighting,"  or  "destruction,"  is 
far  better. 

22.  Have  faith  in  God.  Literally,  "  faith 
of  God,"  God  being  conceived  of  as  the 
object  of  faith.  A  very  unexpected  turn  of 
discourse,  the  purpose  of  his  act  upon  the  tree 
being  entirely  ignored.  Why  did  he  not  ex- 
l)lain  the  .symbolic  meaning  of  the  act?  And 
why  did  he  content  himself  with  giving  an 
object-lesson  in  faitli?  It  wa-s  on  the  principle 
of  Jolni  16  :  12 :  "I  have  yet  many  things  to 
say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now." 
He  preferred  to  leave  the  sad  symbolic  mean- 
ing to  be  perceived  at  a  later  time,  when  they 
could  better  understand  it.    Before  the  day  was 


over  they  might  begin  to  understand  it  for 
themselves  by  observing  how  Jerusalem  treated 
their  Master.  If  not  so,  his  di.scourse  at  even- 
ing might  begin  to  open  their  eyes.  For  that 
discourse  this  act  was  a  kind  of  text.  It  did 
not  now  need  unfolding;  it  would  be  opened 
soon  enough.  But  of  a  lesson  in  faith  they 
were  in  need;  and  so,  instead  of  telling  them 
why  this  had  been  done,  he  told  them  how 
works  of  faith  still  greater  might  be  performed. 
23.  Whosoever  shall  say  unto  this 
mountain.  Be  thou  removed,  etc.  A  sim- 
ilar saying  had  been  given  the  disciples  after 
their  failure  to  heal  the  lunatic  child  (muu.  n  -.  ao). 
Such  language  cannot  possibly  have  been  under- 
stood by  them  or  meant  by  him  in  any  sense  but 
that  of  hyperbole.  (See  an  allusion  to  this  saying 
in  1  Cor.  V6  :  2.)  The  thought  is  that  works  as 
impossible  to  human  strength  as  the  moving 
of  the  Mount  of  Olives  to  the  sea  shall  be  pos- 
sible to  faith  and  shall  actually  be  wrought. 
"  With  God  all  things  are  possible."  For  an 
illustration  of  Jesus  bringing  divine  possibilities 
near  to  human  faith,  see  his  words  to  Martha 
(joiin  11 :  23-27). — ITndoubtiug  Confidence  is  the  se- 
cret of  such  power;  but  confidence  in  what? 
The  belief  that  those  things  which  he  saith 
shall  come  to  pass  must  have  some  founda- 
tion; what  is  the  true  foundation?  Plainly, 
tlie  confidence  that  is  here  encouraged  is  the 
confidence  that  the  proposed  act  is  accordant 
with  the  will  of  God,  and  that  the  will  of  God 
can  and  will  be  done.  Such  confidence,  if  it  is 
to  be  of  any  value,  cannot  be  blind.  It  must 
have  its  rational  and  s])iritual  supports.  No 
man  can  expect,  under  this  promise,  that  a 
mountain  will  be  removed  until  he  is  convinced 
by  good  reasons  that  God  wishes  it  to  be  rcr 
moved.  If  he  is  sure  of  that,  and  sure  tliat 
what  God  wishes  can  and  will  be  done,  he  will 
believe  that  the  mountain  is  to  be  removed. 
The  promise  is  made  to  undoubting  confidence; 
but  if  there  is  room  for  question  whether  the 
confidence  is  not  irrational,  how  can  it  continue 
undoubting?  So  this  promise  .srives  no  encour- 
agement to  random,  enthusiastic  prayers  or  to 


166 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XI. 


24  Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  What"  things  soever  ye 
desire  when  ye  pray,  believe  that  ye  receive  them,  and 
ye  shall  have  tlieot. 

25  And  when  ye  stand  praying,  forgive,*  if  ye  have 
aught  against  any  ;  that  your  I-'ather  also  which  is  in 
heaven  may  forgive  you  your  trespasses. 

20  But"^  if  ye  do  not  forgive,  neither  will  your  Father 
which  is  in  heaven  forgive  your  trespasses. 

27  If  And  they  come  again  to  .lerusalem  :  and"*  as  he 
was  walking  in  the  temple,  there  come  to  him  the 
chief  priests,  and  the  scribes,  and  the  elders. 

2.S  And  they  say  unto  him,  Hy«  what  authority  doest 
,thou  these  things?  and  who  gave  thee  this  authority 
to  do  these  things? 


24  he  shall  have  it.  Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  All 
things  whatsoever  ye  pray  and  ask  for,  believe  that 

25  ye  'receive  them,  and  ye  shall  have  them.  And 
whensoever  ye  stand  praying,  forgive,  if  ye  have 
aught  against  anyone;  that  your  Father  also  who 
is  in  heaven  may  forgive  you  your  trespasses.^ 

27  And  they  come  again  to  Jerusalem  :  and  as  he  was 
walking  in  the  temi)le,  there  come  to  him  the  chief 

28  priests,  and  the  scribes,  and  the  elders;  and  they 
said  unto  him.  By  what  authority  doest  thou  these 
things  ?  or  who  gave  thee  this  authority  to  do  these 


a  Matt.  7:7;    Luke  11  :9;  18  :  1 ;  John  14  :  13  ;    15  :  7  ;  IB  : '24  ;  James  1  :  5.  6 5  Matt.  6  :  14  ;  Col.    3  :  13 c  Matt.  18:. 35 d  Matt. 

21  :  'li  ;  Luke  20  ;  1 c  Num.  16  :  i. 1  (Jr.  received. . .  2  Mauy  ancient  authorities  add  ver.  26  But  if  ye  do  nut  forgive,  neither 

will  your  Father  who  is  in  heaven  forgive  you 


selfish  petitions.  Prevailing  prayer  is  reason- 
able. 

24.  Therefore — i.  e.  because  faith  is  so 
mighty — I  say  unto  you — a  sign  of  special 
emphasis — What  things  soever  ye  desire 
when  ye  pray.  This  is  given  correctly  by  the 
revisers:  "All  things  vk^hatsoever  ye  pray  and 
ask  for."  Desire  is  a  mistranslation  for 
"  ask." — "  Believe  that  ye  received  (them),  and 
they  shall  be  to  you."  So  literally.  The  verb 
"  received "  is  in  the  aorist.  The  best  com- 
mentary on  this  saying  is  found  in  Rom.  8  :  26, 
27,  where  the  acceptable  petitions  which  are 
destined  to  be  granted  are  said  to  have  been 
given  to  the  suppliant  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
by  him  made  so  strong  in  the  soul  as  to  be  un- 
utterable groanings  of  desire.  Thus  our  Lord 
says,  "  Believe  that  you  received  these  things 
from  the  Spirit  of  God  as  the  materials  of  pray- 
er ;  believe  that  these  longings  were  awakened 
in  you  from  above ;  and  your  requests  shall  be 
granted."  But  this  faith,  again,  cannot  be 
blind,  if  it  is  to  inherit  such  a  promise.  It 
must  liave  its  reasons — so  good  that  the  whole 
man  shall  be  satisfied  with  them.  The  reading 
of  the  will  of  God  must  be  rational,  as  well  as 
the  i)leading  of  it.  The  promise  is,  in  meaning, 
"  When  you  have  reason  to  believe,  and  do  be- 
lieve, that  your  prayer  came  to  your  heart-  from 
the  Spirit  of  God,  you  may  be  sure  that  an  an- 
swer to  your  prayer  will  also  come  from  God." 
Compare  the  profound  yet  simple  testimony 
concerning  prayer  in  1  John  5  :  14,  15.  There, 
as  here,  the  crucial  point  is  the  knowing  that 
we  are  asking  acwirding  to  his  will.  But  thanks 
be  to  God  tliat  there  is  a  Spirit  wlio  maketh  in- 
tercession for  the  saints  according  to  the  will  of 
God,  working  in  them  that  which  is  well-pleas- 
ing in  his  sight ! 

25,  26.  Forgive,  if  ye  have  aught 
against  any:  that  your  Father  also 
which  is  in  heaven  may  forgive  you. 
This  saying  is  very  similar  to  Matt.  6  :  14,  15 
and  18  :  35.    Verse  26  is  properly  omitted  by 


the  revisers  as  liaving  been  added  here  by  free 
quotation  from  Matt.  6  :  15.  The  solemn  words 
concerning  forgiveness  were  added,  perhaps, 
partly  to  prevent  misunderstanding  of  his  act 
ui^on  the  fig  tree  and  false  inferences  from  it. 
Prayer  is  a  tremendous  power,  but  it  cannot  be 
used  for  the  gratification  of  personal  resent- 
ments. So  far  from  that,  the  cherishing  of 
such  resentments  is  fatal  to  prayer  itself,  being 
fatal  to  that  full  acceptance  with  God  upon 
which,  as  a  basis,  prevailing  prayer  proceeds. 
An  unforgiving  prayer  against  an  enemy  would 
be  null  and  fruitless  by  its  own  nature  accord- 
ing to  this  law.  Still  further,  the  unforgiving 
spirit  would  vitiate  all  prayer.  In  this  search- 
ing law,  expressed  in  verse  26,  there  is  nothing 
i-etaliatory  or  narrow  on  the  part  of  God.  The 
reason  for  the  law  lies  in  the  nature  of  things. 
The  unforgiving  spirit  is  not  the  penitent  and 
humble  spirit  to  which  forgiveness  is  promised. 
Rather  is  it  the  hard  and  self-asserting  temper 
to  which  the  remission  of  sins  cannot  be  grant- 
ed. To  harbor  resentment  while  pleading  for 
pardon  is  to  cherish  the  "guile"  of  Ps.  32  :  2. 
•  This  law,  limiting  the  availability  of  prayer, 
makes  power  contingent  upon  love :  the  true 
Christian  relation. — For  other  illustrations  of 
what  thing-s  are  contingent  upon  love,  study 
the  First  Epistle  of  John.  Do  not  shrink  from 
the  Ei)istle,  either.  No  part  of  Scripture  is  more 
searching  or  more  fundamental. 

27-33.  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  JESUS 
QUESTIONED.  Parallels,  Matt.  21 :  23-27 ;  Luke 
20  :  1-8. 

27, 28.  From  the  blighted  fig  tree  Jesus  went 
to  his  last  searching  of  tlie  fruitless  Israel.  This 
was  his  last  visit  to  his  Father's  temjjle,  and  the 
answer  of  this  day  to  his  jtresence  and  work  was 
the  full  revealing  of  si)iritual  barrenness. — 
Walking  in  the  temple.  Matthew,  "teach- 
ing;" Luke,  "teaching  the  people  and  preach- 
ing the  gospel."  Here,  even  in  tliis  full  day,  is 
the  hint  of  mucli  unrecorded  labor. — Tlie  relig- 
ious leaders  of  Israel  gathered  with  one  accord 


Ch.  XL] 


MARK. 


167 


29  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  I  will 
also  ask  of  you  one  question,  and  answer  ine,  and  I 
will  tell  you'by  what  authority  I  do  these  things. 

an  The"  baptism  of  John,  was  U  from  heaven,  or  of 
men?  Answer  nie. 

31  And  they  reasoned  with  themselves,  saying,  II" 
we  shall  say,  From  heaven  ;  he  will  say.  Why  then  did 
ye  not  believe  him  ? 

\\1  Hut  if  we  shall  say.  Of  men  ;  they  feared  the  peo- 
ple: for"  all  men  counted  John,  that  he  wa^  a  prophet 
indeed. 

:i:{  And  they  answered  and  said  unto  Jesus,  AVe' 
cannot  tell.  And  Jesus  answcrinj;,  saith  unto  them, 
Neither  do  1=  tell  you  by  what  authority  1  do  these 
thiuKs. 


29  things?  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  I  will  ask  of 
you  one  'question,  and  answer  me,  and  I  will  tell 

30  you  by  what  authority  I  do  these  things.  The  bap- 
tism of  John,  was  it  from  heaven,  or  from  men?  an- 

31  swer  me  And  they  rea.sonetl  with  themselves,  say- 
ing, If  we  shall  say.  From  heaven;  he  will  say.  Why 

32  then  did  ye  not  believe  him?  ^jjut  should  we  say. 
From  men — they  feared  the  people:  ^for  all  verily 

33  held  John  to  be  a  prophet.  And  they  answered  .lesus 
and  say.  We  know  not.  And  Jesus  saith  unto  them, 
Neither  tell  1  you  by  what  authority  I  do  these 
things. 


a  cb.  6  :  '^0 ;  Matt.  3  :  5,  6  ;  14  :  S. . 


.6  Isa.  1  :  R;  29:  14 
aay.  Prom  menf .. 


;  Jer.  8:7;  Hos.  4  :  6....C  Luke  10  :  at.  22. 

.3  Or,  for  all  held  John  to  be  a  prophet  indeed. 


-1  Gr.  uord 2  Or,  But  ahall  we 


to  question  him  as  to  his  authority,  a  perfectly 
proper  tiling  to  do,  except  tliat  by  this  time 
they  ought  to  have  understood  his  claim.  In 
fact,  they  did  understand  it  well  enough ;  but 
the  act  of  yesterday,  the  interference  with  the 
temple,  naturally  called  out  a  fresh  inquiry. 
His  similar  act  three  years  before  had  evoked 
tlie  .-^ame  question  (John  2:  is).  By  what  au- 
thority. Even  a  rabbi,  according  to  Jewish 
custom,  must  have  his  credentials  from  the 
rabbi  who  had  instructed  him,  a  kind  of  di- 
ploma for  autliority;  and  Jesus  had  gone  far 
beyond  the  a.ssumptioiis  of  a  rabbi.  He  had 
claimed  the  office  of  the  Lord  of  the  temple. 
Two  questions  they  put  to  him,  as  to  his  right 
and  tlie  source  of  his  right.  By  what  au- 
thority ?  and  who  gave  thee  this  author- 
ity? 

His  method  of  reply  would  be  familiar  to 
them.  Tlie  rabbis  taught  largely  by  question- 
ing, and  the  practice  of  posing  an  opponent 
with  hard  questions  was  as  old  as  tiie  time  of 
Solomon,  and  doubtless  older.  Yet  his  was  not 
a  mere  counter-question,  a  puzzle,  intended  to 
l)ut  tliem  to  silence.  Logically,  it  wa.s  a  true 
dilemma ;  and,  like  most  dilemmas,  it  had  an 
argument  wrapped  up  in  it.  It  led,  too,  direct- 
ly to  the  answer  t(}  tlieir  question.  If  tliey  would 
ailniit  that  Jubn  the  Baptist  wa.s  commissioned 
from  heaven,they  could  answer  it  tlicmselves; 
for  Jolin  had  declared  himself  the  forerunner  of 
the  Messiah,  and  had  expressly  borne  witness 
that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  If  the  baptism 
of  John  was  from  heaven,  the  long-expect- 
ed C'lirist  stood  before  them,  and  there  was  no 
need  of  asking  by  what  authority  he  purified 
tlie  temple.  Hence  he  said  honestly.  Answer 
me,  "  and  "  (as  in  Matt.  21 :  24)  "  I  in  like  wise 
will  tell  you  by  what  autliority  I  do  tiie.se 
things."  If  they  had  said.  From  heaven,  ho 
would  have  completed  the  argument  for  them 
and  claimed  his  right ;  if  they  had  said,  Of— 
or  from— men,  lie  would  have  reproved  tliem 
for  tlieir  blindness  and  declared  himself  in  doing 


so. — The  sharp  answer  me,  both  in  the  ques- 
tion and  rejieatcd  at  tlie  end,  is  peculiar  to  Mark. 
31-33.  Tiie  religious  leaders  had  played  fast 

and  loose  with  John  ( Jlmt.  3:7;  Luke  7  :  30  ;  John  5  :  35), 

and  i)erhaps  they  now  had  no  very  deep  con- 
victions either  way,  but  only  a  guilty  feeling 
and  a  strong  dislike  of  the  whole  suliject.  Yet 
their  knowledge  must  have  been  such  that  they 
could  not  h(jnestly  deny  his  mission  from  God. 
But  how  natural  their  consultation  under  their 
breath !  This  is  a  touch  from  the  life.  How 
perfect,  too,  the  dilemma!  To  say,  From 
heaven,  was  to  invite  the  question,  Why  then 
did  ye  not  believe  him  ?  That  question 
would  be  fatal,  for  it  would  mean,  "  Why  did 
ye  not  accept  his  testimony  to  me?"  He  had 
used  a  similar  argument  concerning  their  boast- 
ed faith  in  Moses  (John  5:46) :  "  Had  ye  believed 
Moses,  ye  would  have  believed  me."  So  here, 
"  If  John  was  from  God,  so  am  I." — But  the 
other  answer  was  as  Ijad  in  another  way. 
But  if  we  shall  say.  Of  men;  they  fear- 
ed the  people.  Luke,  "All  tlie  people  will 
stone  us  " — a  strong  testimony  to  the  hold  that 
John  had  upon  the  popular  heart. — The  ground 
of  the  fear,  tlioy  all  counted  John,  that  he 
was  a  prophet  indeed,  whose  divine  mis- 
sion was  beyond  question.  Yet  not  all  the  peo- 
ple had  received  his  testimony  to  Jesus.  But 
this  popular  estimate  of  John  is  fully  confirm- 
ed by  Josephus,  who  says  that  many  of  the 
Jews  believetl  Herod's  misfortunes  to  have 
come  as  punishment  for  his  sins  against  John 
{A)it.  18. 5.  2). — So  one  answer  would  leave  them 
without  excuse  before  Jesus,  and  the  other  might 
expose  them  to  tlie  rage  of  the  people.  The  only 
escape  wiis  in  refusing  to  answer.  We  cannot 
tell.  This  should  be,  literally,  "  AVe  do  not 
know  " — a  false  and  cowardly  evasion,  a  confes- 
sion of  helplessness. — The  dishonesty  of  tlie  re- 
ply was  a  sufficient  reason  why  Jesus  should  tell 
them  nothing  more.  To  such  persons  he  could" 
make  no  explanation  of  himself  Neither  do 
I  tell  you.     Notice  that  he  did  not  sav,  "I 


168 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XII. 


CHAPTEK  XII. 


AND  he  began  to  speak  unto  them  by  parables.  A" 
certain  man  planted  a  vineyard,  and  set  au  hedge 
about  it,  and  digged  a  place  fur  the  wiue-t'at,  and  built 
a  tower,  and  let  it  out  to  husbandmen,  and  went  into 
a  far  country. 

2  And  at  the  season  he  sent  to  the  husbandmen  a 
servant,  that  he  might  receive  from  the  husbandmen 
of  the'  fruit  of  the  vineyard. 

3  And  they  caught  him,  and  beat  him,  and  sent  him 
away  empty. 

4  And  again  he  sent  unto  them  another  servant :  and 
at  him  they  cast  stones,"  and  wounded  him  in  the 
head,  and  sent  hiui  away  shamefully  handled. 

5  And  again  he  sent  another;  and  him  they  killed, 
and''  many  others ;  beating  some,  and  killings  some. 


1  And  he  began  to  speak  unto  them  in  parables.  A 
man  planted  a  vineyard,  and  set  a  hedge  about  it, 
and  digged  a  pit  for  the  winepress,  and  built  a  tower, 
and  let  it  out  to  husbandmen,  and  went  into  another 

2  country.  And  at  the  season  he  sent  to  the  husband- 
men a  'servant,  that  he  might  receive  from  the  hus- 

3  bandmen  of  the  fruits  of  the  vineyard.  And  they 
took  him,  and  beat  him,  and  sent  him  away  empty. 

4  And  again  he  sent  unto  them  another  'servant : 
and  him  they  wounded  in  the  head,  and  handled 

5 shamefully.  And  he  sent  another;  and  him  they 
killed :  and  many  others ;  beating  some,  and  killing 


a  Matt.  21 :33;  Luke  20:9 6  Cant.  8  :  11  :  Mic.  7:1;  I.uke  12  :  48:  John  15;  1-8 c  Heb.  11  ;  37 d  Neh.  0  :  30;  Jer.  7  :  25, 

etc «  Matt.  23  :  37. 1  Gr.  bondservant. 


cannot  tell,"  or  "I  do  not  know."  He  might 
have  spoken  as  in  John  8  :  55 :  "  If  I  should 
say,  I  know  not,  I  should  be  a  liar,  like  unto 
you."  No  time-serving  policy  was  ever  treated 
by  him  with  friendly  confidence. — Why  did  not 
our  Lord  avail  himself  of  every  opportunity  to 
assert  his  Messialiship  and  offer  himself  as  the 
Christ?  Because  his  spiritual  jiurpose  could  not 
thus  have  been  so  well  served.  He  came,  he 
said,  as  a  witness  to  the  truth ;  and  his  claim 
was,  "  Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth 
my  voice."  He  that  had  ears  to  hear  would 
hear.  He  wished  to  be  recognized,  not  to  force 
his  way.  He  wished  his  character  and  works 
to  be  his  appeal.  Hence  his  special  claims  of 
Messiahship  were  rare,  and  the  spirit  of  John 
14  :  10,  11  is  the  spirit  of  his  address  to  men : 
"  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  I  speak  not 
of  myself:  believe  me,  that  I  am  in  the  Father 
and  the  Father  in  me." 


1-13.  THE  PARABLE  OF  THE  WICKED 
HUSBANDMEN.  PnraUels,  Matt.  21  :  83-46 ; 
Luke  20  :  9-19.— Here  follow,  in  Matthew,  three 
parables  most  appropriate  to  tlie  time,  all  deal- 
ing with  the  facts  of  ingratitude,  unfaithful- 
ness to  trust,  and  the  certainty  of  punishment. 
They  are  the  parables  of  the  Two  Sons,  the 
Wicked  Husbandmen,  and  the  Marriage  of  the 
King's  Son.  The  nullification  of  God's  com- 
mand is  prominent  in  the  first,  tlie  rejection 
of  his  messengers  and  of  his  Son  in  the  second 
and  third.  Mark  and  Luke  give  only  the  sec- 
ond, and  both  introduce  it  without  any  inti- 
mation that  it  was  not  the  first  of  the  series. 
Mark  distinctly  recognizes  that  there  were 
otliors,  however  by  his  began  to  speak 
unto  them  by  parables.  The  three  versions 
of  this  parable  afford  us  another  striking  ex- 
ample of  the  verbal  divergences  of  the  evan- 
gelists joined  with  complete  substantial  agree- 
ment.    The  divergences  here  are  considerable, 


and  distinctly  prove  that  the  three  reports  were 
made  from  memory  and  were  not  intended  to 
jjreserve  the  very  words  of  Jesus. 

1,  2.  The  first  sentence  would  remind  his 
hearers  of  Ps.  80  :  8-11,  and  especially  of  Isa. 
5  :  1-7,  where  Israel  is  Jehovah's  vineyard. 
There,  as  here,  the  vineyard  is  provided  with 
wall,  tower,  and  wine-vat.  While  lie  does  not 
exactly  quote  from  Isa.  5,  his  language  in  both 
Matthew  and  Mark  is  so  like  that  of  tlie  pas- 
sage from  Isaiah  in  the  Septuagint  as  to  render 
certain  his  intention  to  bring  it  to  mind. — The 
hedge,  or  "wall,"  of  the  vineyard  was  some- 
times a  wall  of  earth,  and  sometimes  a  close- 
woven  fence. — The  wine-fat  was  the  recep- 
tacle for  the  juice  after  it  was  trodden  out.  It 
was  the  lower  one  of  two  receptacles,  or  tanks, 
dug  out  of  the  earth  or  the  rock.  The  grapes 
were  trodden  in  the  upper  one,  which  was  the 
wine-press,  and  the  juice  then  flowed  down 
into  the  vat  below.  In  Matthew's  description 
of  the  vineyard  the  wine-press  is  introduced, 
instead  of  the  vat. — The  tower  was  tlie  place 
— sometimes  literally  a  tower  and  sometimes 
only  a  cottage  (isa.  i :  s) — from  wliich  tlie  keepers 
viewed  and  guarded  the  property.  (For  details 
and  illu.strations,  see  Van  Leiincp's  Bible  Lanch, 
112-118.)— All  this  tells  of  a  thorough  fitting  up 
of  the  vineyard,  and  suggests  the  language  of 
Isa.  5:4:  "  What  could  have  been  done  more 
to  my  vineyard,  that  I  have  not  done  in  it?" — 
How  often,  in  our  Lord's  paralilcs,  do  we  meet 
witli  this  going  into  a  far  country,  repre- 
senting most  vividly  an  actual  trust  in  the 
bands  of  men !  But  tlie  vineyard  was  well 
equipped,  and  the  owner  might  certainly  ex- 
pect a  fair  return. — He  sent  for  the  fruit  at 
the  season,  the  reasonable  time.  He  does 
not  claim  fruit  before  it  can  have  grown. 

3-5.  A  succession  of  attemjits  by  the  owner 
to  secure  his  riglits,  and  of  insulting  and  abus- 
ive repulses  by  the  employed.    He  sent  a  ser- 


Ch.  XIL] 


MARK. 


169 


6  Having  yet  therefore  one  son,  his  well  beloved,  he" 
sent  him  also  last  unto  theiu,  saying,  They  will  rever- 
ence my  son. 

7  Hut  those  husbandmen  said  among  themselves. 
This  is  the  heir:  come,  let  us  kill  him,  and  the  inher- 
itance shall  be  ours. 

H  And  they  took  him,  and  killed  him,  and  cast  him 
out''  of  the  vineyard. 

y  What  shall  therefore  the  lord  of  the  vineyard  do? 
He  will  come  and"  destroy  the  husbandmen,  and  will'' 
give  the  vineyard  unto  others. 


G  some.  He  had  yet  one,  a  beloved  son  :  he  sent  him 
last  unto  them,  saying.  They  will  reverence  my  son. 

7  But  those  husban<iincn  said  among  themselves.  This 
is  the  heir  ;  come,  let  us  kill  him,  and  the  inheritance 

8 shall  be  ours.     And  they  took  him,  and  killed  him, 

9  and  cast  him  forth  out  ui'  the  vineyard.  What  there- 
fore will  the  lord  of  the  vineyard  do?  he  will  come 
and  destroy  the  husbandmen,  and  will  give  the  vine- 


aHeb.  1  :  1,  2....a  Ht-b.  13  :  l'2....c  Prov.l  :  21-31 ;  Isa.  5  :  5-7  ;  Dun.  9  :  M....d  Jer.  17  :  3. 


vant— another  servant — another  —  many 
others.  So  in  Murk;  in  Matthew,  "  liLs  serv- 
ants," "  other  servants  more  than  the  first ;" 
in  Luke,  "a  servant,"  "another  servant,"  "a 
third."  But  the  many  others  in  verse  5  is 
governed,  not  by  he  sent,  but  by  a  verb  sup- 
plied from  tlie  sense  :  "  .Many  others  they  mal- 
treated, beating  some  and  killin;j;  some." — In 
verse  4  translate,  "  And  him  they  wounded  in 
the  iiead,  and  handled  shamefully;"  omitting 
the  reference  to  stoning.  The  word  that  is 
rendered  Avouniled  in  the  head  {kcphaluumn) 
is  nowhere  else  used  in  that  sense,  or  as  de- 
seriptive  of  any  physical  action.  It  ordinarily 
means  "  to  summarize  "  or  "  to  sum  up."  But 
the  physical  sen.se  here  is  scarcely  to  be  doubt- 
ed.— Evidently,  in  speaking  of  the  servants,  our 
Lord  referred  to  the  long  line  of  the  proi)liets. 
The  true  fruit  from  Israel  would  have  been 
obedience  to  God ;  of  which,  obedience  to  his 
me.ssages  through  the  jirophets  would  have 
been  an  important  part.  But  with  these  words 
of  the  pro))liets  are  included  all  other  messages 
and  i)roviilential  calls  for  faithfulness  in  the 
history  of  Israel.  The  slowness  of  Israel  to 
understand  from  the  heart  the  nature  of  its 
trust  would  have  worn  out  any  patience  but 
tiie  divine.  As  for  the  prophets,  the  career 
of  Jeremiah  is  more  fully  recorded  than  any 
other,  and  may  serve  as  an  e.Kamjile,  no  doubt, 
of  many;  and  it  fully  justifies  the  picture  that 
is  drawn  in  this  ])arable.  (See  2  Chron.  24  :  17- 
22,  for  the  case  of  Zechariah,  the  son  of  Je- 
hoiada.  See  also  2  Kings  17  :  13,  14 ;  2  Chron. 
o(j  :  14-1(5 ;  Neh.  9  :  2G  for  general  statements  on 
the  rejection  of  the  prophets;  also  the  defence 
of  Stephen,  Acts  7.) 

6.  The  last  apjtcal,  and  the  highest.  One 
son,  his  well  beloved,  remained  to  the 
owner  of  the  vineyard  ;  a  son,  liiglier  than  the 
servants.  (See  the  same  thought  gloriously 
unfolded  in  Ileb.  1  :  1-4,  and  applied  by  way 
of  exhortation  in  2  :  1^.  Tiie  rank  of  him 
who  is  the  Son  is  there  made  the  si)ecial  rea.son 
why  he  must  be  received.)  In  Luke,  where 
the  tone  of  deliberation  is  more  marked,  the 
owner  says  of  his  son,  "  It  may  be  they  will 


reverence  him."  Of  course,  God  did  not  say 
"periiaps,"  or  ask,  "What  shall  I  do?"  Yet, 
with  reference  to  obtaining  fruit  from  the  Jew- 
ish peoi)le,  the  sending  of  his  Son  was  just  such 
a  last  resort  as  this.  So  the  Son  himself  said 
(Luke  19:42;  Matt.  23:34-37).  If  they  had  received 
him  and  rendered  the  rightful  fruit  of  faith, 
far  different  would  their  lot  have  Iwen. 

7,  8.  Let  us  kill  him,  and  the  inherit- 
ance shall  be  ours— /.  c.  by  po.s.scssion.  Mat- 
thew, "  Let  us  kill  him,  and  let  us  seize  on  his 
inheritance."  The  fact  that  lie  was  the  heir 
served  them  as  an  argument  for  violence,  not 
for  reverence;  for  they  thought,  if  he  were 
once  out  of  the  way,  no  one  else  would  trou- 
ble them.  In  tliis  view  verse  7  expresses  not 
unfairly  the  spirit  of  the  Jewish  people,  or  at 
least  of  their  leaders,  respecting  Jesus.  True, 
it  claims  that  they  had  a  deeper  conviction 
concerning  his  relation  to  God  than  they  ever 
avowed.  But  he  "  knew  what  was  in  man," 
and  knew  that  they  were  rejecting  him  be- 
cause they  felt,  even  though  dimly.  This  is 
the  heir.  He  was  making  such  a  claim  on 
them  as  they  had  never  felt  before,  and  they 
dimly  perceived  that  if  this  could  but  be  si- 
lenced they  should  lie  left  at  peace. — They 
took  him,  and  killed  him,  and  east  him 
out  of  the  vineyard.  Threw  liis  lifeless 
body  over  the  wall,  utterly  and  insultingly 
rejected  him.  In  Matthew  it  is  "cast  hun 
out  of  the  vineyard  and  kilUnl  him,"  where 
some  have  thought  they  found  a  hint  of  the 
giving  over  of  Jesus  to  the  Gentiles  to  be  put 
to  death.  But  the  hint,  if  it  exists,  is  too 
vague  for  use,  and  probably  was  not  intended 
at  all.  The  jiarable  was  framed  to  teach  a 
lesson  broadly,  not  to  provide  a  projilietic 
sketch  of  events.  It  is  not  likely  that,  when 
Jesus  was  so  anxious  to  make  the  one  point 
too  j)lain  to  be  missed,  he  spent  thought  on  so 
vague  and  unim]iortant  a  suggestion  as  this 
would  be. 

9.  Now  crimes  the  important  question  —  a 
question  of  life  and  deatii  to  the  trusted  l)Ut  un- 
faithful. ^>  hat  shall  therefore  the  lord  of 
the  vineyard  do  i     Tlie  oijvious  answer  ia 


170 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XII. 


10  And  have  ye  not  read  this  scripture;  The"  stone 
which  tlie  builders  rejected  is  become  the  head  of  the 
corner : 

11  This  was  the  Lord's  doing,  and  it  is  marvellous  in 
our  eves  ? 

12  And'  thev  sought  to  lay  hold  on  him,  but  feared 
the  peoi»le :  for  they  knew  that  he  had  spoken  the  par- 
able aguiust  them :  and  they  left  him,  and  went  their 
way. 

13  ^  And''  they  send  unto  him  certain  of  the  Phar- 
isees and  of  the  Herodians,  to  catch  him  in  his  words. 


10  yard  unto  others.  Have  ye  not  read  even  this  scrip- 
ture ; 

The  stone  that  the  builders  rejected, 

The  same  was  made  the  head  of  the  corner: 

11  This  was  from  the  Lord, 

And  it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes  ? 

12  And  they  sought  to  lay  hold  on  him  ;  and  they  feared 
the  multitude  ;  for  they  j)eroeived  that  he  s])ake  the 
parable  against  them  :  and  they  left  him,  and  went 
away. 

13  And  they  send  unto  him  certain  of  the  Pharisees 
and  of  the  Herodians,  that  they  might  catch  him  in 


a  Ps.  118  :  2a 6  ch.  11  :  18 ;  John  7  :  30 c  Matt.  22  :  15 ;  Luke  20  :  20,  etc. 


given  in  Marie  and  Luke  by  Jesus  himself;  in 
Matthew,  by  his  auditors.  (Compare  the  case 
of  David,  cauglit  by  a  parable  and  led  to  con- 
demn himself,  2  Sam.  12  :  5,  6.)  Both  may  well 
have  occurred,  Jesus  answering  his  own  ques- 
tion and  his  answer  being  supported  by  their 
voices.  According  to  Luke,  some  voices  at  least 
dissented,  with  a  deep  "  God  forbid !"  These 
were  the  voices  of  the  more  penetrating,  who 
saw  the  force  of  the  parable,  and  who  perceived, 
perhaps,  that  if  it  meant  anything,  it  meant 
that  God  must  destroy  his  own  city  and  sacred 
place.  But  the  true  answer  was  too  obvious  to 
be  escaped. — The  disobedient  husbandmen,  who 
were  robbers  (Mai. 3:8)  and  murderers  too,  must 
be  deprived  of  their  trust,  and  must  receive  the 
extreme  punishment;  and  the  vineyard  must 
be  entrusted  to  others,  who  will  be  fiiithful. 
Only  in  the  answer  of  the  hearers  (Matthew)  is 
it  added,  "  who  will  render  him  the  fruits  in 
their  season"— a  living  sign  of  their  deep  in- 
terest in  the  story.  The  prediction  was  fultilled 
in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  scattering 
of  the  Jewish  people,  and  the  entrusting  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  to  Gentile  rather  than  to 
Jewish  hands.  If  the  ancient  husbandmen 
had  been  true  to  their  trust,  they  would  not 
have  been  so  cast  out ;  but  now  the  attitude  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  (Acts 
13 :  46)  was  the  only  one  that  it  was  pos.sible  for 
a  representative  of  the  kingdom  to  take. 

10,  11.  The  thought  is,  "But  you  are  over- 
looking the  qu'^stion,  What  is  to  become  of  the 
rejected  son?  He  was  killed  and  thrown  out 
of  the  vineyard :  what  of  him  ?"  Our  Lord 
illustrated  this  question  from  Scripture,  and 
Scripture  adjacent  to  that  which  provided  the 
hosannas  of  the  people  a  few  days  earlier.  The 
rejected  stone  becomes  the  corner-stone :  to  him 
who  is  now  rejected  belongs  the  first  place  of 
honor.  The  quotation  is  from  tlie  LXX.  of 
Ps.  118  :  22,  23. — The  corner-stone  is  no  other 
than  Christ  himself.  (Compare  Acts  4  :  11 ; 
Epli.  2  :  20 ;  1  Pet.  2:7;  and  Isa.  28  :  16,  from 
which  last  passage,  probably,  the  whole  group 
of  references  to  the  corner-stone  proceeded.) 


When  he  was  speaking  he  was  a  rejected  stone ; 
but  his  confidence  in  the  future  was  unwaver- 
ing.— Verse  11,  This  was  the  t,ord's  doing, 
and  it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes.  Gram- 
matically, "  From  the  Lord  did  it"  (the rejected 
stonej  "become  this"  (become  the  head  of 
the  corner),  "and  it"  (the  head  of  the  cor- 
ner, the  corner-stone)  "  is  marvellous  in  our 
eyes."  As  for  the  origin  of  this  metaphor,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  accept,  as  Plumptre  apparently 
does,  the  story  of  an  unmarked  stone,  of  strange 
proportions,  rejected  as  unsuitable  by  the  build- 
ers of  Solomon's  temple,  but  afterward  discov- 
ered to  be  the  corner-stone,  sent  from  the  quarry 
fitted  to  its  place — a  story  that  looks  suspi- 
ciously like  one  invented  to  suit  the  passage. 
More  likely  the  psalm  was  composed  after  the 
return  from  the  Captivity,  and  the  primary 
reference  is  to  Israel  restored  and  full  of  hope : 
"A  people  once  rejected  and  of  no  account  is 
now  restored  and  re-established  and  counted  as 
a  fovnidation-stone  of  the  temple  of  God,  which 
he  is  setting  up  on  the  earth  "  (Kimchi,  quoted 
in  the  Bible  Commentanj,  on  Ps.  118  :  22.)  In 
the  time  of  our  Lord  the  passage  was  commonly 
referred  to  the  Messiah. 

12.  His  quotation  had  shown  them  the  pur- 
pose of  his  parable,  and  now  they  took  it  to 
themselves  in  anger;  not,  as  David,  in  pen- 
itence. Their  anger  was  violent,  but  his  hold 
on  the  people  was  too  evident  and  too  strong  to 
allow  them  to  arrest  him.  Mark  alone  adds 
and  they  left  him,  and  Avent  their  way. 
Thev  were  baffled  and  helpless. 

13-17.  QUESTION  CONCERNING  TRIB- 
UTE TO  CESAR.  Parallel)!,  Matt.  22  :  15-22; 
Luke  20  :  20-20.— A  consultation  followed  (Mat- 
thew), somewliere  in  the  temple.  Luke  por- 
trays the  deliberate  attempt  to  palm  off  a 
trumped-up  inquiry  as  a  genuine  case  of  con- 
science. He  also  says  that  this  question  was 
intended  to  bring  Jesus  into  the  hands  of  the 
Roman  Government. 

13,  14.  The  same  ill-starred  union  that  was 
made  before  in  Galilee  (Mark  :i :  6)  ai)pears  now  in 
Jerusalem.     The  Pharisees,  intense  formal- 


Ch.  XII.] 


MARK. 


171 


14  And  when  they  were  come,  they  say  unto  him, 
Master,  we  kuow  that  thou  art  true,  and  care.st  for  no 
man  ;  lor  thou  regardest  not  the  person  of  men,  hut 
teachest  the  way  of  God  in  truth:  Is  it  lawful  to  give 
trihute  to  ('«sar,  or  not? 

15  Shall  we  give, or  shall  we  not  give?  Buthe.know- 
ing  their  hypocrisy,  said  unto  them,  Why  tempt  ye  me? 
liring  me  a  pennv,  that  1  may  see  il. 

Hi  And  tliev  brought  it.  And  he  saith  unto  them. 
Whose  /v  this  image  and  superscription?  And  they 
said  unto  liini,  Ciesar's. 

17  And  Jesus,  answering,  said  unto  them.  Render  to 
Cajsar"  the  things  that  are  Ca;sar's,  and  to  God*  the 
things  that  are  uod's.    And  they  marvelled  at  him. 


14  talk.  And  when  they  were  come,  they  say  unto  him, 
'Master,  we  know  tliat  thou  art  true,  anil  carcst  not 
for  any  one:  for  thou  regardest  not  the  person  of 
men,  liut  ol  a  truth  teacliest  the  way  of  liod:  Is  it 

15  lawful  to  give  trihute  unto  Ca;sar  or  not?  ."^hall  we 
give,  or  shall  we  not  give?  liut  he,  knowing  their 
hypocrisy,  .said  unto  them.  Why  try  ye  me?  bring 

IG  me  a  -deiiarius,  that  1  may  see  it.  And  they  brought 
it.  And  he  saith  unto  them.  Whose  is  this  image  and 
superscription?     And  they  said  unto  him,  Ciesar's. 

17  And  .lesus  said  unto  them,  Render  unlo  <  ;esar  the 
things  that  are  (icsar's,  and  unto  God  the  things  that 
are  God's.     And  they  marvelled  greatly  at  him. 


a  Matt.  17:  Jo,  27;  Kom.  13:7;  1  Pet.  2:  17 b  Eccles.  5:4,  5;  Mai.  1  :< 


-1  Or,  Teacher.... 2 See  marginal  DOte  on  cbap.  vi.  31. 


ists  and   nationalists,   and    the    Ilerodians, 

comproiiu.sors  and  tinie-servors  on  Iiotli  jidints, 
had  no  love  for  each  other,  but  ci  )inl  lined  again.st 
Je.sus. — The  purpose  wa.s  to  catch  hiin  in  his 
words,  the  verb  meaning,  literally,  "  to  take 
in  hunting."  Matthew's  word  means  "to  take 
by  a  snare." — The  messengers  must  have  sup- 
posed themselves  concealed  beyond  suspicion, 
or  they  would  scarcely  have  attempted  this 
great  parade  of  candor  and  respect.  How  elab- 
orate their  pretence  of  confidence  in  his  impar- 
tiality !  Is  it  lawful — allowable  for  Jew.s — to 
give  tribute  to  t'a'sar,  or  not?  Shall  we 
give,  or  shall  we  not  give?  Not  national 
tribute,  but  personal  ta.xpaying,  is  meant.  The 
word  for  tribute  is  kan^os,  Latin  census,  and 
meant  originally  the  annual  tax  that  was  as- 
sessed upon  property  enrolled  in  the  census  of  the 
Roman  Empire.  But  in  Judtea,  at  that  time, 
it  meant  an  annual  i)oll-tax  of  a  denarius  a 
head,  collected  of  all  subjects.  The  point  of 
the  (juestit)!!  was,  therefore,  "  Is  it  allowable  for 
Jews  to  acknowledge  the  Roman  power  by  sub- 
mitting to  its  taxation?"  No  (piestion  could 
be  more  exciting.  The  Jewish  peo])le  were 
widely  affected  by  the  doctrine  that,  since  God 
was  the  King  of  Israel,  the  land  was  detiled  by 
the  pre.'^ence  of  the  Roman  power,  and  no  true 
Jew  could  pay  taxes  to  it.  (See  Joscphus,  Ant. 
18.  1.  1.)  On  this  questi(m  tierce  insurrections 
had  arisen,  attended  with  bloodshed.  The  Phar- 
isees hated  the  tax ;  the  attituile  of  the  Ilero- 
dians is  somewhat  doubtful.  They  had  no  love 
for  the  Romans,  but  it  seems  more  probable  that 
from  motives  of  {)olicy  they  maintained  the 
lawfulness  of  the  tax.  If  so,  their  agreement 
with  the  Pharisees  was  an  agreement  on  the 
part  of  each  to  throw  Jesus,  if  possible,  into 
the  hands  of  the  other;  as  if  each  should  say, 
"  If  he  takes  your  side,  he  falls  into  my  hands; 
if  mine,  into  yours."  If  he  opposed  the  tax, 
he  could  be  reported  to  the  governor  as  a  rebel ; 
if  he  consented  to  it,  he  would  so  excite  the 
people  that  he  could  be  reported  to  the  gover- 
nor as  a  dangerous  character,  even  if  the  peo- 


ple did  not  break  out  In  violence  against  him 
and  spontaneously  do  the  murderous  will  of 
his  enemies. 

15-17.  Before  him  hypocrisy  is  a  useless 
mask.  Il(jw  his  terse  answer  contrasts  with 
their  palavering  (]uestion !  and  how  i)lainly 
his  indignation  speaks  out!  Why  tempt  ye 
me,  jtutting  me  to  such  a  test? — Bring  me  a 
penny — denariu.s — that  I  may  see  it.  ^lat- 
tliew,  more  fully,  "the  tribute  money" — i.e. 
the  coin  in  which  the  tribute  is  jjaid.  It  was 
paid  in  the  Roman  denarius,  a  silver  coin 
worth   originally   about   seventeen   cents,   but 


DKN.\RIUS. 

reduced    in    weight   before    that   time    to  the 
value  of  about  fifteen   cents.    No  hatred  of 
the  Romans  sufficed  to  keep  it  from  common 
circulation  among  the  Jews.     (See  Matt.   18  : 
28 ;    20  :  2 ;    Mark   (5  :  37  ;    14  :  5 ;    Luke  7  :  41 ; 
10  :  35.)    There  is  said,  however,  to  have  been 
a  coin,  made  in  concession  to  Jewish  prejudice, 
on  which  there  was  no  })ortrait  of  the  emperor. 
j  But  a  denarius  with  both   likeness  and  legend 
1  was  not  far  to  seek,  even  if  no  one  of  the  com- 
!  jwny  had   one,  for  the   moneychangers  were 
near. — Whose   is  this   image    and    super- 
scription?   or,   rather,    'inscription."  —  Cae- 
j  sar's.     "  Tlien  you  are  under  the  government 
!  of  Ctesar,   and  must  render  to  him  whatever 
I  belongs  to  the  service  of  a  subject.     Your  cur- 
rent coin  acknowledges  the  Empire,  and  you 
are  bound  to  obey  its  just  demands." — Notice 
the  word  that  he  chose,  in  contrast  with  their 
word.    They  said  give,  dounai ;  he  said.  Ren- 
der, or  "  Give  back,"  apodote.     They  thought 
of  the  service  as  voluntiiry,  he  as  an  obligation. 
The  question  was  not  one  of  giving,  but  of  pay- 


172 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XII. 


18  %  Then"  come  unto  him  the  Sadducees,  which  say'' 
there  is  no  resurrection ;  and  they  asked  him,  saying, 

ID  Master,  Moses  wrote'  unto  us.  If  a  man's  brother 
die,  and  leave  /li.s  wife  behind  hhii,  and  leave  no  chil- 
dren, that  his  lirother"*  should  take  his  wife,  and  raise 
up  seed  unto  his  brother. 

20  Now  there  were  seven  brethren:  and  the  first 
took  a  wife,  and  dying,  left  no  seed. 

21  And  the  second  took  her,  and  died  ;  neither  left 
he  any  .seed :  and  the  third  likewise. 

22  And  the  seven  had  her,  and  left  no  seed :  last  of 
all  the  woman  died  also. 

23  In  the  resurrection  therefore,  when  they  shall 
rise,  whose  wife  shall  she  be  of  them  V  for  the  seven 
had  her  to  wife. 


18  And  there  come  unto  him  Sadducees,  who  say  that 
there  is  no  resurrection ;  and  they  asked  him,  say- 

19  ing,  iMaster,  Moses  wrote  unto  us.  If  a  man's  brother 
die,  and  leave  a  wife  behind  him,  and  leave  no  child, 
that  his  brother  should  take  his  wife,  and  raise  up 

20  seed  unto  his  brother.  There  were  seven  brethren  : 
and   the  first  took  a  wife,  and  dying  left  no  seed ; 

21  and  the  second  took  her,  and  died,  leaving  no  seed 
22 behind  him;  and  the  third  likewise:  and  the  seven 
23  left  no  seed.    Last  of  all  the  woman  also  died.    In 

the  resurrection  whose  wife  shall  she  be  of  them  ? 


1  Matt.  22  :  23  ;  Luke  20  :  27,  etc b  Acts  23  :  8 c  Deut.  25:5 d  Ruth  1  :  11,  13. 


-1  Or,  Teacher 


ing,  of  discharging  a  duty.  The  government 
gave  something  to  them,  and  tliey  must  give 
back  something  to  the  government.  Thus  he 
answered  their  question  in  the  affirmative,  and 
even  -went  farther  than  that,  asserting  that  tax- 
paying  was  not  only  allowable,  but  required. — 
But  the  clause  that  he  added  searched  the  heart. 
And  (render,  or  give  back)  to  God  the  things 
that  are  God's.  "  Duty  to  God  stands  un- 
changed: you  are  still  invested  with  a  trust 
from  him,  and  are  bound  to  return  to  him  the 
loyalty  and  the  obedience  that  are  his  due." 
The  question  related  to  the  attitude  that  the 
people  of  God  should  take  toward  the  Roman 
Empire.  The  answer  was,  "  You  can  be  loyal 
to  both,  and  you  must  be  loyal  to  botli."  But 
the  form  of  the  reply  suggested  the  appeal  or 
exhortation  :  "  See  that  you  are  loyal  to  both. 
You  do  acknowledge  Caesar  by  paying  his  tax ; 
you  do,  because  you  must.  Now  see  that  you 
render  to  God  his  tribute,  and  give  him  what 
you  owe  to  him." 

Several  practical  truths  are  taught  by  this 
passage.  (1)  Established  and  recognized  civil 
government  has  a  valid  claim  on  its  subjects. 
So  also  Rom.  13  :  1-7,  where  Paul  (at  verse  7) 
seems  to  allude  to  this  word  of  Jesus,  using  the 
same  language  :  "  Render  therefore  [apodotc)  to 
all  their  due."  (2)  This  claim  is  partly  for 
value  received — a  claim  of  justice  for  the  good 
that  government  does.  This  is  implied  in  the 
choice  of  the  word  "  Render."  (3)  This  claim 
is  not  inconsistent  with  the  authority  of  God, 
but  it  is  rather  enforced  by  his  authority. 
So  in  1  Pet.  2  :  13-17,  and  still  more  emphat- 
ically in  Rom.  13.  God  enforces  this  claim, 
partly  because  it  is  a  claim  for  just  return,  and 
partly  because  civil  government  is  one  of  the 
representatives  and  means  of  his  own  righteous 
administration  among  men.  (4)  This  claim  is 
not  entirely  dependent  upon  the  subject's  ap- 
proval of  the  character  of  the  chief  magistrate. 
The  Ca;sar  of  that  day  was  Tiberius.  (5)  Loy- 
alty to  God,   however,   occupies  a  field  with 


which  civil  government  has  nothing  to  do. 
God  could  rightfully  require  Israel  to  do  its 
duty  to  Caesar,  but  Csesar  could  not  rightfully 
require  Israel  to  do  its  duty  to  God.  In  this  field 
of  religious  obligation  conflicts  may  arise  be- 
tween human  authority  and  divine ;  in  which 
case,  if  Cajsar  intrudes,  God  is  first  to  be  obeyed. 
So,  in  principle.  Acts  4  :  18-20 ;  5  :  29 ;  Rev.  1  :  9. 
God  built  Caesar's  throne,  and  God's  law  is 
highest. 

To  the  discussion  of  this  exciting  question  of 
the  day  Jesus  brought  a  new  comjirehensive- 
ness.  One  party  paid  the  tax  willingly  enough, 
in  worldly  indifference  to  God ;  the  other  resisted 
it  or  paid  it  indignantly,  burning  with  an  igno- 
rant zeal  for  God.  It  did  not  occur  to  either  that 
true  zeal  for  God  and  cheerful  payment  of  the 
tax  could  be  united.  But  he  told  them  that,  if 
they  understood  God's  sovereignty  and  Caesar's 
Empire,  they  could  be  loyal  to  both.  Some 
things  are  due  to  Ctcsar,  and  some  to  God  ;  and 
both  can  be  rendered  in  full  consistency.  A  fine 
example  of  new  light  by  comprehensiveness. 

The  amazement  of  his  questioners  (expressed 
by  a  strong  compound  word)  can  easily  be  im- 
agined. Instead  of  falling  into  the  hands  of 
either  pai-Vt%  he  had  actually  thrown  now  light 
on  the  question. 

18-37.  QUESTION  OF  SADDUCEES  CON- 
CERNING THE  RESURRECTION.  Parallels, 
Matt.  22  :  23-33 ;  Luke  20  :  27-39. 

18.  The  Pharisees  and  Herodians  having 
been  silenced,  it  was  the  turn  of  the  Saddu- 
cees to  come  forward.  Their  question  is  as 
insincere  as  the  preceding;  it  was  a  juizzle 
upon  a  doctrine  in  which  they  -vx'ere  total  un- 
believers. It  proves,  however,  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection  was  everj'where  recognized 
as  a  doctrine  of  Jesus. 

19-23.  This  is  the  so-called  Levirnto  marriage 
(from  Latin  levir,  "a  brother-in-law").  (See 
Deut.  25  :  5-10.)  This  provision  corres]ionded 
to  the  universal  desire  in  Israel  for  the  per- 
petuation of  name  and  family.    So  strong  was 


Ch.  XII.] 


MARK. 


173 


24  And  Jesus  answering  said  unto  them,  Do  ye  not 
therelbre  err,  because  ye  know  not  the  scriptures, 
neither  the  power  of  (iod? 

25  For  wlieu  tliey  sliall  rise  from  the  dead,  they 
neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage;  but"  are  as 
the  ungels  which  are  in  heaven. 


24  for  the  seven  had  her  to  wife.  Jesus  said  unto  them, 
Is  it  not  for  this  cause  that  ye  err,  that  ye  know  not 

25  the  .scriptures,  nor  the  power  of  God'.'  lor  when 
they  shall  rise  from  thedead,  they  neitlier  marry,  nor 
are  given  in  marriage;  but  are  as  angels  in  heaven. 


a  1  Cor.  15  :  42,  S3. 


the  desire  that  this  provision  was  made  for  a 
putative  oirsi)ring  in  default  of  actual.  The 
custom  was  older  than  the  law,  however  (cen. 
38:8),  ami  exi.sts  in  many  Eastern  nations.  But 
the  obscure  expression  in  Deut.  25  :  5,  "  If  breth- 
ren dwell  together,  and  one  of  them  die,"  leaves 
us  uncertain  in  exactly  what  circumstances  the 
law  was  applicable.  There  is  no  ca.se  recorded 
in  the  Old  Testament,  tiiough  there  is  an  allu- 
sion to  the  custom  in  Ruth  1  :  11-13.  The 
transaction  of  Ruth  4  :  1-8  is  of  another  kind. 
These  (luestioncrs  stated  the  law  fairly,  but 
their  illustration  was  an  extreme  one,  meant 
far  a  rrdactio  nd  ahxurdiun.  The  language  of 
verse  19  is  awkward,  I)ut  tiiere  is  no  difficulty 
about  the  sense. — There  were  seven  breth- 
ren. In  Matthew,  "tliere  were  with  us,"  as  if 
the  case  were  fresh  from  the  life.  Verse  22  sliould 
be,  simply,  and  the  seven  left  no  seed  :  last 
of  all  the  woman  died  also.  Childless  by 
all  the  marriages,  the  wninan  was  not  linked  to 
any  one  of  the  husl)ands  mure  than  to  the 
others.  —  In  the  resurrection,  therefore, 
when  they  (the  woman  and  tlie  seven  broth- 
ers) shall  rise,  whose  wife  shall  she  be 
of  them  ?  It  is  a.ssumed  that  she  must  be 
.some  one's  wife,  and  how  will  Jesus  judge  be- 
tween tiie  rival  claims  of  the  seven? 

24.  Tiiere  is  something  wi>uderful  in  the  gen- 
tleness of  the  answer,  considering  the  insincerity 
of  the  (piestion.  lie  quietly  a.**sumed  that  there 
was  an  error,  and  proceeded  to  account  for  it ;  he 
did  not  even  distinctly  assert  it.  Do  ye  not 
therefore  (from  this  cau.se)  err— is  it  not  for 
this  cause  that  ye  err — because  ye  know  not 
the  scriptures,  neither  the  power  of  God  ? 
Is  not  ignorance  the  secret  of  your  error? 
Ignorance  (1)  as  to  the  Scriptures.  lie  did  not 
mean,  of  course,  that  the  resurrection  was 
mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  plainly,  as 
it  was  mentioned  by  him.  He  meant  that  if 
they  had  understood  the  Old  Testament  right- 
ly, they  would  have  found  the  resurrecti(m  im- 
plied in  its  teaching,  or  at  least  would  have 
been  prei)ared  to  receive  the  doctrine.  Not  un- 
fannliarity  with  the  Scriptures,  but  ignorance 
of  their  true  meaning,  kept  them  from  believ- 
ing in  the  resurrection.  Moreover,  a  true  know- 
ledge of  the  Scriptures  would  have  prevented 
their  ideas  from  being  so  grossly  carnal.    (2) 


As  to  the  power  of  God.  All  their  conceptions 
of  a  resurrection  were  of  a  low  and  carnal  kind 
that  underestimated  the  power  of  (iod  as  shown 
therein.  They  thought  only  of  a  re-establish- 
ment of  the  present  fleshly  life.  No  conception 
had  they  of  the  power  of  God  to  make  life  al- 
together new  in  the  resurrection-state,  but  thia 
is  what  he  will  do.  Now  follows  the  truth  on 
these  two  points:  (1)  The  I'uivcr  of  God;  (2) 
Tlie  Scriptures. 

The  Power  of  God. — 25.  lie  tells  them  that 
they  have  not  understood  the  resurrection  :  it  is 
.something  far  nobler  than  they  have  supposed, 
and  it  will  work  I'hanges  sucii  as  they  never 
thought  of  When  they  shall  rise  from  the 
dead.  General,  and  equal  to  "  in  the  resurrec- 
tion" of  Matthew. — They  neither  marry — 
contract  marriage  as  husbands — nor  are  given 
in  marriage,  by  the  act  of  their  parents,  as 
wives.  In  the  resurrection-state  there  will  be 
no  marriage.  The  reason,  as  expressly  given  in 
Luke,  is  that  they  "  cannot  die  any  more." 
Marriage,  esi)ecially  a.s  suggested  by  the  Levi- 
rate  institution,  exists  for  the  .sake  of  offspring. 
But  birth  and  death  are  correlatives ;  they  be- 
long in  the  same  world:  if  one  ceases,  the  other 
must  cease.  In  that  world  there  is  no  death  ; 
hence  no  birth,  hence  no  marriage.  The  i)ower 
of  (iod  will  have  brought  into  being  tliat  wiiich 
Paul  calls  the  spiritual  body,  in  which  sexual 
relations  will  not  continue.  Notice  that  this  is 
not  a  denial  of  the  peri)etuity  of  those  mental 
characteristics  whicii  distinguish  the  sexes  in 
this  world.  It  is  not  afhrmed  that  they  are 
excluded  from  the  resurrection-state.  It  is  not 
said  that  tlie  holy  spiritual  relations  and  per- 
sonal affinities  that  may  have  accompanied 
marriage  will  not  continue,  or  that  husband 
and  wife  will  be  nothing  to  each  other  in  the 
fiit-re  life.  The  questioners  thought  of  that 
life  as  a  continuation  of  this,  with  its  relations 
unchanged;  and  he  simply  told  them  that 
marriage,  in  that  world,  would  be  out  of  place. 
Upon  the  relations  of  .soul  witli  soul  in  that 
world  he  did  not  touch. — But  are  as  the 
angels  which  are  in  heaven.  Not  "«>f 
angels,"  but  "are  as  angels."  The  most  that 
we  know  of  angels  is  drawn  from  such  allu- 
sions as  this.  What  is  here  implied  concern- 
ing them  is  that  they  are  immortal,  and  hence 


174 


MAEK. 


[Ch.  XII. 


26  And  as  touching  the  dead,  that  they  rise  ;  have  :  26  But  as  touching  the  dead,  that  they  are  raised  ;  have 


ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  iMoses,  how  in  the  bush  tiod 
spake  unto  liim,  saying,"  i  am  the  God  of  Abraham, 
and  the  God  ot  Isaac,  and  the  tiod  of  Jacob? 

27  He  is  not  the  i  .od  of  the  dead,  but  the  God  of  the 
living ;  ye'  therefore  do  greatly  err. 


ye  not  read  in  tlie  book  of  Moses,  in  thf  place  con- 
winiiit)  the  hush,  liow  God  spake  unto  him,  saying, 
I  am  the  (jod  of  Abraliam,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and 
27  the  God  of  Jacob?  He  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead, 
but  of  the  living:  ye  do  greatly  err. 


;  Ex.  3  :  S b  ver.  21. 


among  them  the  marriage  relation  does  not 
exist. 

Thus  far,  Jesus  expounded  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection.  The  Sadducees  rejected  it, 
but  they  knew  it  only  in  a  gross  form.  Very 
beautiful  is  his  kindness  in  thus  conunending 
a  rejected  doctrine  by  jiresenting  it  in  a  nobler 
form  ;  as  much  as  to  say,  "  Would  not  even  you 
have  believed  it,  if  you  had  known  it  thus?" 
An  example  to  all  preachers  and  teachers. 
State  your  doctrine  at  its  noblest;  perhaps 
those  who  reject  it  have  never  vmderstood  it. 
The  Scrutures. — 26,  27.  Now  he  turns  to 
prove  the  doctrine  that  he  has  been  expound- 
ing— ».  e.  to  find  it  in  the  Holy  Writings.  He 
quoted  from  the  book  of  the  law  (the  Penta- 
teuch), because  from  it  the  question  had  been 
drawn  ;  possilily,  also,  because  the  Sadducees 
prized  it  above  the  other  Scriptures.  The  rela- 
tion of  this  extract  to  the  doctrine  in  discussion 
is  somewhat  peculiar.  The  expectation  of  a 
life  beyond  the  present  was  expressed  with 
greater  or  less  clearness  here  and  there  in  the 
Old  Testament.  Many  of  the  writers  had 
shown  that  they  cherished  such  a  hope,  though 
not  with  the  clearness  of  the  gospel.  But  it  was 
not  the  h(^pe  or  expectation  that  Jesus  now 
wished  to  bring  out :  it  was  the  fact.  Hence  an 
expression  of  human  desire  or  aspiration  would 
not  suit  his  purpose,  even  though  it  were  made 
under  tlie  guidance  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  He 
must  find  a  direct  utterance  of  God.  This  pas- 
sage, therefore,  may  be  expected  to  lie  of  unusual 
importance  respecting  a  future  life.  To  this  pe- 
culiarity of  the  case  well  corresponds  Luke's 
peculiar  word  :  "That  the  dead  are  raised,  Mo- 
ses also  revealed" — brought  to  light — "at  the 
bush."— Translate,  in  verse  26,  "  have  ye  not 
read,  in  the  book  of  Moses,  at  the  bush,  how  God 
spake  unto  him  " — i.  e.  in  the  section  or  par- 
agraph where  "the  bush"  is  the  subject  of  dis- 
course. (Com])are  2  Sam.  1 :  18.) — I  am  the  God 
of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and 
the  God  of  Jacob.  The  citation  here  is  from 
Ex.  3  :  6,  the  words  of  Jehovah  to  Moses. — The 
words  might  be  found  in  many  other  places  of 
Scripture  :  no  language  was  more  characteristic 
of  the  old  covenant  or  more  familiar  to  Jewish 
ears.  He  took  no  recondite  passage,  but  one  of 
the  great  words  of  the  old   dispensation. — In 


verse  27,  therefore  is  to  be  omitted.  The  read- 
ing is.  He  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but 
the  God  of  the  living  :  ye  do  greatly  err — 

i.  e.  ye  greatly  err  in  interpreting  the  text  as  if 
he  called  himself  the  God  of  men  who  do  not 
now  exist.  If  he  is  any  man's  God,  you  may 
know  that  that  man  exists. 

How  did  he  draw  such  an  inference?  Ey  a 
fresh  and  rich  principle  of  interpretation,  argu- 
ing from  the  nature  of  God,  and  of  God's  rela- 
tions to  man.  The  Sadducees  took  the  passage 
to  mean,  "  I  am  the  God  in  whom  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob  put  their  trust  during  their 
brief  existence,  which  is  now  for  ever  ended." 
But  Jesus  reasoned  thus :  "  A  God  who  did  for 
the  patriarchs  what  he  did  would  not  speak  so 
of  himself  He  was  gloriously  their  God — so 
gloriously  that  he  could  not  call  himself  their 
God  in  such  a  sense,  if  their  being  had  been  but 
transient.  If  men  were  destined  to  become  ex- 
tinct, he  could  not  be  so  gloriously  a  God  to 
them.  That  such  a  God  is  or  can  be  their  God 
is  proof  that  tliey  are  more  than  mortal."  The 
argument  is  that  the  relations  into  which  God 
enters,  or  proposes  to  enter,  with  men  imply 
their  immortality.  The  richness  of  man's  rela- 
tion to  God  is  the  fact  from  which  Jesus  infers 
his  continued  existence.  See  what  a  God  be- 
comes man's  God,  and  it  will  be  plain  that  he 
is  no  creature  of  a  day.  Notice  that  he  docs  not 
present  this  as  a  fact  that  lies  upon  the  face  of 
Scripture,  so  that  no  one  can  miss  it.  The  Sad- 
ducees missed  it,  and  others  may  ;  but  Jesus 
teaches  us  that  they  who  explore  tlic  Scriptures 
by  the  light  of  God's  nature  will  find  it. — As 
if  in  order  to  ensure  that  this  should  not  be 
taken  as  an  argument  for  conditional  immor- 
tality—  i.  e.  immortality  for  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob  as  chosen  ones— Luke  adds  tliat  "  all 
live  unto  him  " — i.  c.  in  such  sense  that  he  is 
"God  of  the  living"  to  them,  all  are  alive.  A 
distinct  statement  of  the  continued  existence  of 
all  human  beings.  The  relation  to  God  from 
which  the  argument  is  derived  is  naturally  pos- 
sible to  all,  if  not  actual ;  and  so  the  conclusion, 
of  immortality,  is  true  of  all. — Notice  that  he 
draws  no  distinction  here  between  continued 
existence  and  resurrection.  The  assertion  of 
the  former  lie  regards  as  sufficient  to  establish 
the  latter.    If  persons  continue  to  exist,  it  is 


Cii.  XII.] 


MARK. 


175 


28  H  And"  one  of  the  scribes  came,  and  having  beard 
theiu  reasoning  together,  and  perceiving  that  he  had 
answered  them  well,  asked  him,  Which  is  the  tirst 
commundnient  of  all  .' 

29  And  .Icsus  answered  him,  The  first  of  all  the  com- 
mandments is,''  Hear,  O  Israel ;  The  Lord  our  (jod  is 
one  l.or<l : 

.ill  And  thou  shall  love  the  Lord  thy  Ood  with  all 
thv  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind, 
and  with  all  thy  strength'."  This  U  the  first  command- 
ment. 

:{1  And  the  second  is  \ike,  namrh/  this.  Thou"*  shalt 
love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  There  is  none  other 
commandment  greater  than  these. 


28  And  one  of  the  scribes  came,  and  heard  them 
questioning  together,  and  knowing  that  he  had 
answered   them  well,  asked    him.  What  command- 

29  ment  is  the  first  of  all?  Jesus  answered.  The  first  is, 
Hear,  O  Israel :  'The  Lord  our  (lod,  the  Lord  is  one: 

30 and  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  dod  -with  all  thy 
heart,  and  -with  all  thy  soul,  and  -with  all  thy  mind, 

31  and  siwith  all  thy  strength.  The  second  is  this. 
Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.    There  is 


o  Matt.  22:  33.... 6  Deut.  6  :  i,  5  ;  Luke  10  :  27.. .  .e  Ex.  20  :  2.  ...d  Lev.  19:18;  Matt.  22:39;  Rom.  13:9.- 
ouf  Cod ;  the  Lord  is  one 2  l>  r.  from. 


-1  Or,  The  Lord  is 


proper  to  speak  of  their  resurrection.  Compare 
John  5  :  29,  where  resurrection  is  predicted  for 
the  two  classes  that  include  all  men. 

Luke  adds  that  after  this  answer  some  of  the 
scribes  responded,  "  Rabbi,  thou  hast  well  said," 
bein<:c,  perhaps,  as  Farrar  says,  "  plca.sed  by  the 
spiritual  refutation  of  a  scepticism  which  their 
reasonings  had  been  unal)lc  to  remove." — The 
fresh  method  that  he  thus  introduced,  of  inter- 
preting Scripture  in  the  light  of  the  nature  of 
God  and  of  his  relations  to  men,  is  a  method 
of  boundless  suggestiveness.  This  one  specimen 
of  exegesis  is  enough  to  prove  the  freshness  and 
originality  of  the  Christian  light  upon  the  word 
of  God. 

28-34.  QUESTION  OF  A  SCRIBE  CON- 
CERXIXG  THE  GREATEST  COMMAND- 
MENT. Pnmlld,  Matt.  22  :  34-40.— In  Matthew 
this  question  appears  as  the  result  of  a  confer- 
ence of  the  Pharisees,  encouraged  by  the  defeat 
of  the  Sadducees,  though  doubtless  rendered 
more  respectful  by  their  satisfaction  at  Jesus' 
victory.  In  Mark  the  questioner  alone  is  men- 
tioned. But  Matthew  reports  only  the  question 
and  answer,  while  in  Mark  the  story  is  a  rich 
chapter  out  of  the  personal  life  of  the  inquirer. 

28.  One  of  the  scribes.  Matthew  says, 
"  a  lawyer :"  the  sj)ecialty  of  the  scribes  lay 
among  questions  of  the  law.  He  was  an  hon- 
est man,  whose  attention  was  now  fastened  by 
the  wise  and  suggestive  reply  of  Jesus  to  the 
Sadducees.  That  a  lawyer-scrilie  should  be 
pleased  with  that  answer,  a  profound  spiritual 
interpretation  of  a  passage  in  the  law,  was  it- 
self a  special  mark  of  ingenuousness.  That 
answer  made  him  wish  to  know  what  Jesus 
thought  on  other  points  in  the  law. — Which — 
ra^^her  "what;"  literally,  "of  what  kind" — is 
the  first  commandment  of  ail? — i.  c.  Of 
what  sort  must  a  commandment  be,  in  order  to 
be  the  first?  What  is  the  decisive  quality  that 
gives  first  rank  to  a  commandment?  This  was 
one  of  the  everla.sting  questions,  the  relative 
importance  of  various  commands  ;  but  the  dis- 
cussions and  decisions  were  often  of  the  most 
12 


trifling  kind.  (See  Farrar,  2.  2.38.)  The  qual- 
itative word  poia,  "  of  what  kind,"  probably 
indicates  that  the  man  was  thinking  of  com- 
mands by  classes,  distinguished  from  each  other 
by  quality  and  graded  according  to  importance. 
If  so,  his  idea  was  a  true  one,  and  his  view  of 
the  law  was  no  means  the  lowest. 

29,  30.  Jesus  answered  him,  The  first 
of  all  the  commandments  is.  Hear,  O  Is- 
rael, etc.  Quotation,  slightly  varied,  from  the 
LXX.  of  Dent.  G  ;  4,  5.  The  first  words,  Hear, 
O  Israel ;  the  Lord — or  Jehovah — our  God 
is  one  Lord,  were  a  part  of  the  form  of  morn- 
ing and  evening  worship  in  the  temple.  No 
scriptural  language  was  more  sacred  to  Jewish 
ears. — Out  of  this  aflfirmation  of  the  reality  and 
unity  of  the  God  of  Israel  ("I  am  God,  and 
there  is  none  else")  naturally  flowed  the  com- 
mand to  regard  him  with  an  exclusive  and  all- 
controlling  love.  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  (literally)  "out  of  thy  whole  heart, 
and  out  of  thy  whole  soul,  and  out  of  thy 
whole  mind,  and  out  of  thy  whole  strength." 
The  Hebrew  (in  Deuteronomy)  enumerates 
heart,  soul,  and  strength ;  but  the  LXX.  ren- 
dered "heart"  by  "mind."  Jesus  introduces 
both.  This  enumeration  was  not  intended  by 
Moses,  or  by  Jesus,  as  a  metapliysical  analysis 
of  man,  but  rather  as  a  cumulative  and  com- 
prehensive statement  of  the  obligation  to  love 
God.  Yet  there  is  a  fitness  in  each  word.  Love 
to  God  is  to  possess  the  heart,  where  the  affec- 
tions dwell ;  the  soul,  the  centre  of  personality ; 
the  mind,  or  understanding;  and  the  entire  ac- 
tive power  of  the  man.  The  call  for  such  love 
is  the  first  claim  of  the  law,  not  merely  because 
such  love  will  lead  to  obedience  to  all  other 
commands,  but  for  the  deeper  reason  that  such 
love  is  the  natural  and  necessarj'  claim  of  the 
good  God  upon  moral  beings.  If  there  is  a 
God  who  is  worthy  to  be  regarded  at  all,  this  is 
the  first  duty  of  men  to  him.  Hence  this  law 
is  eternal. 

31.  The  second  is  like,  namely  this. 
Omit  like^  namely.     Matthew  has  "  the  sec- 


176 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XII. 


32  And  the  scribe  said  unto  him,  Well,  Master,  thou 
hast  said  the  truth:  lor  there  is  one  God  ;  and"  there 
is  none  otlier  but  be  : 

33  And  to  love  him  with  all  the  heart,  and  with  all 
the  understanding,  and  with  all  the  soul,  and  with  all 
the  strength,  and  to  love  /li.s  neighbor  as  himself,  is 
more*  tliiui  all  whole  burnt-otiierings  and  sacritiees. 

34  And  when  Jesus  saw  that  he  answered  discreetly, 
he  said  unto  him,  Ihou  art  not  far  from  the  kingdom 
of  God.  And  no  man  after  that  durst  ask  him«  any 
quesHun. 


32  none  other  commandment  greater  than  these.  And 
the  scribe  said  unto  him.  Of  a  truth,  ^Master,  thou 
hast  well  said  that  he  is  one ;   and  there  is  none 

33  other  but  he :  and  to  love  him  with  all  the  heart, 
and  with  all  the  understanding,  and  with  all  the 
strength,  and  to  love  bis  neighbor  as  himself,  is 
much  more  than  all  whole  burnt  otferings  and  sac- 

34rifices.  And  when  Jesus  saw  that  be  answered  dis- 
creetly, he  said  unto  him.  Thou  art  not  far  from  the 
kingdom  of  God.  And  no  man  after  that  durst  ask 
him  any  question. 


a  Dent.  4 :  39 ;  Isa.  43 : 5 ;  6 :  14 ;  46 : 9. . .  .6  1  Sam.  15  :  22 ;  Hos.  6:6;  Mic.  6  : 6,  8. . . .  c  Matt.  22  :  46.- 


-1  Or,  Teacher 


ond  is  like  unto  it,"  whence  the  word  like  was 
brouglit  into  the  text  of  Mark.  The  hkeness  of 
love  to  God  and  love  to  man  is  a  profoundly  sug- 
gestive truth  too  much  overlooked  in  Christian 
life.  A  large  part  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John  is 
an  inspired  commentary  upon  it. — Thou  shall 
love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  Quoted  from 
Lev.  19 :  18,  where  it  is  thechmax  of  a  nobleseries 
of  moral  commands  in  the  midst  of  the  book 
of  ceremonies.  By  the  Jews  it  was  held  in 
honor.  Compare  Luke  10  :  27,  where  "a  cer- 
tain lawyer "  gave  the  two  commands  exactly 
as  Jesus  gave  them  now ;  but  by  them  it  was 
narrowly  interjareted,  in  the  spirit  which  Jesus 
condemned  at  Matt.  5  :  43-48  and  by  the  par- 
able of  the  Good  Samaritan  (Luke  lo :  30-37).  Here 
he  speaks  of  the  second  command  as  the  proper 
sequence  of  the  first,  and  of  the  second  form  of 
love  as  the  natural  result  of  the  first.  Love  to 
God  will  flow  out  in  love  to  man.  Paul  speaks 
of  love  to  man  as  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,  so 
far  as  man  is  concerned  (Rom.  13 : 9).  James  hon- 
ors this  second  command  as  "  the  royal  law  " — 
i.  e.  the  king  of  laws — "  according  to  the  Scrip- 
ture." JoJm  traces  love  to  its  source,  alfirming 
that  love  is  from  God  and  that  God  is  love.— The 
solemn  close  of  the  answer  is,  in  Mark,  There 
is  none  other  commandment  greater  than 
these.  In  Mattliew,  "  On  these  two  command- 
ments hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets."  In 
^Mark  it  is  the  unrivalled  greatness  of  these  that 
is  emphasized ;  in  Matthew  it  is  tlie  fact  that  these 
form  the  verj'  life  of  God's  revelation  in  the  Old 
Testament.  With  such  a  statement  of  the  law 
as  this,  we  can  well  understand  what  our  Lord 
said  in  Matt.  5  :  17  of  his  own  teaching  as  the 
fulfilment,  or  completion,  of  the  law ;  and  we 
have  no  difficulty  in  accepting  the  strong  lan- 
guage of  the  following  verse  about  the  eternity 
of  the  law.  If  love  is  the  heart  of  God's  rev- 
elation, in  its  older  form  as  well  as  in  its  newer, 
then  he  was  revealing,  first  as  well  as  last,  an 
eternal  principle  and  an  eternal  law.  Only  its 
form  can  change. 

32,  3.3.  The  remainder  of  the  paragraph  is 
peculiar  to  Mark.  Well—/,  e.  finely,  beauti- 
fully said.     Translate,  "Well,  Rabbi!    Truly 


saidst  thou  that  he  is  one,  and  there  is  no  other 
besides  him." — The  scribe  repeated  tlie  com- 
mands friim  Jesus'  lips,  only  substituting  un- 
derstanding for  mind.  He  repeated  them  as 
if  lie  loved  tliem,  or  at  least  deeply  approved 
them. — Is  more  than  all  whole  burnt-of- 
ferings— holocausts,  offerings  of  animals  to  be 
wholly  consumed,  and  thus  the  completest  form 
of  sacrifice — and  sacrifices.  Here  the  scribe 
went  beyond  the  utterances  of  the  law,  techni- 
cally so  called,  and  took  up  the  noblest  tone  of 
the  prophets  and  psalmists.  He  had  learned  the 
lesson  of  such  Scriptures  as  Ps.  40 :  6-8  ;  ol  :  10, 
17  ;  50  :  7-15  ;  1  Sam.  15  :  22 ;  Isa.  1 :  11-20 ;  Jer. 
7  :  22,  23 ;  Hos.  6:6;  Mic.  6  :  6-8.  In  all  these, 
obedience  is  set  forth  as  better  than  sacrifice,  and 
sacrifice  is  pronounced  worthless  apart  from  obe- 
dience in  spirit.  He  had  not  learned  the  lesson 
so  thoroughly  as  to  be  separated  from  the  com- 
pany of  the  Pharisees,  but  he  was  not  ignorant 
of  the  great  truth  that  religion  is  of  the  heart. 

34.  It  was  in  this  that  he  answered  dis- 
creetly, or  with  understanding — namely,  that 
he  perceived  the  value  of  the  religion  of  the  heart. 
To  perceive  this  was  to  touch  the  heart  of  Jesus. 
To  prize  love  toward  God  and  man  is  to  be  "  dis- 
creet ;"  this  is  understanding.  This  is  the  "  wis- 
dom "  of  the  book  of  Proverlis.— Thou  art  not 
far  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  Neither  far 
from  it,  nor  yet  within  it.  This  insight  into 
spiritual  things  brought  him  near— very  near ; 
but  he  must  act  upon  his  insight,  and  jxirt  com- 
pany with  the  perverters  of  Scripture  and  rec- 
ognize the  true  King  who  stood  before  him,  be- 
fore he  would  be  in  the  kingdom.  The  words 
are  full  of  encouragement  and  of  warning: 
Near !  How  easy,  then,  to  enter !  How  terri- 
rible  to  go  back !— We  can  neither  repress  nor 
answer  the  question,  Wliat  became  of  the  man? 
It  is  difficult  to  think  that  he  turned  back  from 
the  very  gate.  Yet  what  an  opportunity  just 
then  for  such  a  man  to  be  "  offended  "  in  him  ! 
To  liow  many  can  it  be  said,  "  The  kingdom  of 
God  is  come  nigh  unto  you,"  to  whom  it  cannot 
be  said,  "  Thou  art  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of 
God  "  ! 

This  ended  the  questioning ;  no  one  ventured 


Ch.  XIL] 


MARK. 


177 


35  ^  And  Jesus  answered  and  said,  while  he  taught 
in  tlie  temple,  How  say  the  .scribes  that  (.  hrist  is  the 
son  of  David?" 

:t(;  l'orl)avi<l  h i nisei r  said  hv*  the  Holy  (.host.  The" 
Lord  said  to  my  Lord,  Sit  thoii  on  my  right  hand,  till 
I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool. 

:!7  David  therefore  him>elf  calleth  him  Lord;  and 
whence  is  lie  /'"«  his  sou?  And  the  couimou  people 
heard  him  gladly. 


35  And  Jesus  answered  and  said,  as  he  taught  in  the 
temple.  How  say  the  .--crilies  that  the  (  hri.sl  is  the 

36  son   of    Havid?     Lavid   himself   .said   in   the   Holy 
Spirit, 

The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord, 
Sit  thou  on  my  rit;ht  hand. 

Till  1  make  thine  enemies  'the  fooLstooI  of  thy 
feet. 
37 David  himself  calleth  him  Lord;  and  whence  is  he 
his   son'.'     And  -the  common    people    heard    him 
gladly. 


a  Matt,  ii  -.il;  Luke  20:  41 6  2  Sam.  23  :  2  ;  2  Tim.  3: 16 c  Ps.  110: 1. 1  Some  ancient  authorities  read  underneath  thy 

ftet...  .2  Or,  the  great  multitude 


to  carry  it  farther.  It  is  a  sign  of  the  imiepend- 
eni;e  of  the  narratives  that  Luke  introduces  this 
remark  afterthe<iue.s;tioii  of  the  Saddut'ce.s,  Mark 
after  the  (luestion  of  the  scribe,  and  Matthew 
after  Jesus'  own  question  in  return.  But  there 
is  no  {-ontradiction  here,  for  tlie  remark  stands 
in  eaeli  evangelist  at  tlie  end  of  the  questioning, 
strictlv  so  called,  a.s  that  evangelist  records  it. 

35-37.  THE  (QUESTION  OF  .JESUS  IN  RE- 
TURN. Pnralleh.  Matt.  22  :  41-46  ;  Luke  20  :  41- 
44. — Having  repelled  all  their  cjuestions,  he  add- 
ed to  their  defeat  hy  asking  one  of  his  own,  ad- 
dressed, in  Mattliew,  to  the  Phari.sees,  who  were 
"gathered  together,"  where  also  lie  draws  out 
from  them  the  statement  that  the  Me.ssiah  is 
the  son  of  David.  In  Mark  and  Luke  lie 
him.self  cites  the  statement — in  Mark,  from  the 
scribes. — That  Christ  is  the  son  of  David. 
So  he  had  been  saluted  the  other  day,  at  tlie  en- 
tering of  the  city.  Tliat  this  name  would  right- 
fully belong  to  tlie  ]Me.**siah,  no  one  doubted  in 
those  days.  (See  I.sa.  11:1-4:  Jer.  23  : 5, 0,  etc.)— 
Tlie(|ucsti(in  (if  .Icsus,  David  therefore  him- 
self calleth  him  Lord;  and  whence  is  he 
then — i.  e.  how  can  he  be — his  son  ?  was  not, 
of  course,  a  denial  of  tiiis,  but  a  thrust  intended 
to  reveal  the  inade(iuacy  of  the  current  concep- 
tion. The  principle  involved  is  that  of  com- 
paring Scri])ture  with  Scripture;  as  if  he  had 
said,  "Do  not  form  your  idea  of  the  relation 
of  the  Messiah  to  David  upon  a  single  class  of 
passages.  Here  is  a  passage  that  will  modify 
your  conception:  liave  you  thought  of  it? 
David  speaks  of  him  as  liis  Lord;  there  must 
therefore  be  something  for  you  to  add  to  your 
idea  that  he  is  David's  son" — a  necessary  rule 
of  interpretation,  so  self-evident  that  there  ought 
to  be  no  need  of  enfnrciiig  it.  Yet  there  is  need, 
for  many  intluences  conspire  to  lead  Christians 
as  well  as  Jews  to  forget  it. 

Concerning  this  passage  (Ps.  110:  1,  quoted 
exactly  from  the  LXX.),  Jesus  here  affirms  (1) 
that  David  was  the  author  of  it.  His  use  of  it 
turns  upon  this  fact ;  and  thus  he  a.ssents  to  the 
title  that  stands  above  the  psalm,  both  in  the 
Ilelirew  and  in  the  LXX.  (2)  That  David  made 
12 


this  utterance  "  in  the  Holy  Spirit."  This  can 
mean  only  that  the  utterance  was  not  solelv 
David's  own,  but  was  made  under  an  inspira- 
tion of  the  Spirit  of  God.  No  theory  of  inspi- 
ration is  given  here,  but  the  fact  is  expressly 
stated,  (b)  That  the  pas.sage  was  Messianic. 
Not  for  himself  (i  Pet.  i :  12),  any  more  than  of  liim- 
self  (2Pet.  i:2i),  did  David  say  this.  It  was  one 
of  those  ft)rward-looking  utterances  that  found 
their  full  meaning  only  in  him  who  was  to 
C(jme. — The  passage,  thus  i)rought  by  the  Lord 
himself  to  its  application,  took  a  powerful  hold 
upon  the  faith  and  imagination  t)f  the  ciiurch, 
and  entered  into  the  formation  of  doctrine. 
(See  Acts  2  :  34-36;  1  Cor.  15  :  25;  Eph.  1  :  20; 
Col.  3:1;  Heb.  1:3;  8:1;  10  :  12 ;  12  :  2 ;  1 
Pet.  3  :  22.)  Here,  however,  the  argument  of 
Jesus  turns  on  the  word  Lord,  and  implies  the 
divinity  of  the  Messiah.  David's  son  would  be 
a  man  ;  but  this  Son  of  David  was  to  be  one 
whom  David  could  also  call  his  Lord.  More 
than  man,  therefore,  he  must  be.  This  is  a 
warning  that  the  scribes  have  their  ideas  of  the 
Messiah  still  to  mend  and  tf)  conform  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Scrijitures. 

And  the  common  people — translate,  "the 
great  multitude"  (ho  jmlus  oclilos) — heard  him 
gladly.  A  touchingtestimony  to  his  acceptance 
even  on  this  last  day  of  his  ministry.  It  was  a 
day  of  victory.  How  thankful  all  godly  Jews 
ought  to  have  been  for  such  a  voice  as  this,  ex- 
pouiKling  the  familiar  Scrijitures  and  revealing 
God  I — The  unhappy  mistranslation,  the  com- 
mon people  heard  him  gladly,  has  been 
made  the  basis  fur  inferences  far  too  large — even 
if  the  text  had  been  right — as  to  the  character 
and  popular  effect  of  his  ministry.  It  is  a  won- 
der that  the  revisers  have  retained  it. 

38-40.  ■\VARNING  AGAINST  THE 
SCRIBES.  Panilh-h  Luke  20  :  45-17.  — How 
much  of  Matthew's  twenty-third  chajiter  is 
parallel,  as  having  been  now  uttered,  it  is  jier- 
haps  impossible  to  say.  A  large  part  of  that 
chapter  has  a  close  parallel  in  Luke  11  :  37-52, 
and  Luke  13  :  34.  35  is  identical  with  the  con- 
clusion of  the  discourse  in  Matthew.    Accord- 


178 


MARK. 


[Cii.  XII. 


3f  'H  And  he  said  unto  them"  in  his  doctrine,  beware* 
of  the  scribes,  which  love  to  go  in  long  clothing,  and 
lox!e  salutations  in  the  market-places, 

39  And""  the  chief  seats  in  the  synagogues,  and  the 
uppermost  rooms  at  feasts  ; 

4U  W  hich  devour  widows'  houses,"*  and  for  a  pretence 
make  long  prayers:  these  shall  receive  greater  damna- 
tion. 

41  f  And«  Jesus  sat  over  against  the  treasury,  and 
beheld  how  the  people  cast  money  into  the  treasury  : 
and  many  that  were  rich  east  in  much. 

42  And  there  came  a  certain  poor  widow,  and  she 
threw  in  two  mites,  which  make  a  farthing. 


38  And  in  his  teaching  he  said.  Beware  of  the 
scribes,  who  desire  to  walk  in  long  robes,  and  /o  /lave 

39  salutations  in  the  marketplaces,  and  chief  seats  in 

40  the  synagogues,  and  chief  places  at  feasts ;  they  who 
devour  widows'  houses,  'and  for  a  pretence  make 
long  prayers ;  these  shall  receive  greater  condemna- 
tion. 

41  And  he  sat  down  over  against  the  treasury,  and 
beheld  how  the  multitude  cast  -money  into  the 
treasury:   and  many  that  were  rich  cast  in  much. 

42  And  there  came  ■^a  poor  widow,  and  she  cast  in  two 


-I  Or,  even  while  /or  a  pretence  they 


ing  to  Luke  11,  the  chief  part  of  this  discourse 
was  spoken  in  a  Pharisee's  house,  somewliere 
in  Persea.  It  seems  most  probable  that  Mat- 
thew, not  having  recorded  tlie  Pertean  ministry, 
here  combined  several  discourses  of  denuncia- 
tion, which  were  actually  delivered  at  various 
times.  At  the  same  time,  the  brief  report  in 
Mark  and  Luke  may  be  only  a  fragment  of 
what  was  said  on  this  occasion.  This  appears 
to  have  been  his  lagt  word  with  his  enemies,  as 
the  discourse  of  John  14-16  was  his  last  word 
with  his  friends. 

Beware  of  the  scribes,  which  love — 
correctly,  desire — to  go  in  long  clothing,  and 
(desire)  salutations  in  the  market-places. 
Luke  inserts  "love"  before  "salutations,"  but 
Mark  carries  the  verb  "desire"  through  the 
sentence. — In  long  clothing.  Liddell  and 
Scott  render  "in  full  dress" — /.  e.  in  whatever 
official  robes  they  were  entitled  to  wear;  not,  as 
Jesus,  in  the  clothing  of  common  life. — Sal- 
utations, formal  and  prolix,  forbidden  by  Jesus 
to  his  disciples  on  their  journeys  f(jr  work 
(Luke  10 : 4).— Chief  scats  in  the  synagogues. 
The  seats  nearest  to  where  the  sacred  rolls  of  the 
law  were  kept. — Uppermost  rooms — chief 
places,  or  couches — at  feasts.  The  places  of 
honor  at  the  table.  "  Uppermost  rooms  "  was 
once  intelligible,  bi^t  is  strangely  misleading 
now.  "Room"  meant  "place,"  not  apart- 
ntent,  when  the  translators  used  it  thus.  (For 
e.xplanation  of  the  allusion,  see  Luke  14  :  7- 
11.) — Devour  widows'  houses.  As  if  this 
were  what  they  fed  upon  in  their  first  places  at 
the  feasts.  Covetous  designs  that  we  cannot 
further  specify  are  meant.  "  Insinuating  them- 
selves with  defenceless  women,  as  if  tliey  would 
truly  be  their  defenders  "  ( Theop/n/lnct). — These 
shall  receive  greater — or  more  abundant — 
damnation,  or  "condemnation."  Greater, 
because  tliey  had  misused  their  spiritual  priv- 
ileges, betrayed  the  trust  of  the  simple,  and 
brought  reproacli  upon  the  name  of  God. — Our 
Lord's  denunciations  of  the  representatives  of 
Judaism  in  his  day  seem  terribly  severe  and 


almost  cruel ;  but  what  is  known  of  tlie  absurd 
and  heartless  refinements  of  the  Pharisaism  of 
that  age  fully  supports  the  strong  language  that 
he  used.  What  must  have  been  the  indigna- 
tion of  such  a  soul  as  his  at  such  perversion  of 
the  religion  of  liis  Father ! 

41-44.  THE  POOR  WIDOW  AND  HER 
OFFERING.  Parallel,  Luke  21 : 1-4.— Jesus  sat 
over  against  the  treasury.  Peculiar  to  Mark. 
The  treasury  stood  in  the  court  of  the  women. 
Here  were  thirteen  brazen  chests,  called  sho- 
pheroth,  or  "trumpets,"  from  the  shape  of  the 
apertures  for  the  reception  of  money.  "  Nine 
chests  were  for  the  appointed  temple  tribute 
and  for  the  sacrifice  tribute — that  is,  money- 
gifts  instead  of  the  sacrifices;  four  chests  for 
freewill-offerings,  for  wood,  incense,  temple  dec- 
oration, and  burnt-offerings"  (Lujhtfoot). — Be- 
held—as he  sees  now — how  the  people  cast 
money  into  the  treasury.  Literally,  "  cop- 
per ;"  but  the  word  had  obtained  the  wider  sense 
of  money  in  general.  That  many  of  the  -gifts 
were  large  is  an  indication  that  it  is  tised  here 
in  the  wider  sense. — The  verb  beheld,  in  the 
imperfect  tense,  seems  to  show  that  he  was  sitting 
and  watching  the  stream  of  givers  as  it  passed. 

42.  A  certain  poor  widow — literally,  "one 
poor  widow" — coming  alone;  contrasted  with 
the  many  rich  who  cast  in  much.  Her  gift 
evidently  belonged  among  the  freewill-otferings. 
The  incident  is  fresh  and  striking  after  the  men- 
tion of  men  who  devour  widows'  houses.  Even 
if  this  widow  was  not  a  victim  of  the  scribes, 
she  was  one  of  the  class  whose  misfortunes  Je- 
sus had  freshly  in  mind.— Two  mites.  The 
lepton  ("thin")  was  a  very  small  copper  coin. 
The  kndrantes  —  vih.\ch.  is  the  Latin  quadrnns 
transferred  to  Greek — was  one-fourth  of  the 
Roman  as.  The  as,  originally  of  greater  value, 
was  worth  at  this  time  abotit  eight  mills;  hence 
tlie  lepton,  "  mite,"  was  about  one  mill.  She 
had  not  in  her  hand  the  single  coin,  the  far- 
thing, but  the  two  that  made  up  its  value  :  "  Of 
which  the  widow  might  have  kept  one"  {Ben- 
gel).    She  freely  gave  both. 


Ch.  XIII.] 


MARK. 


179 


43  And  lie  called  vnto  him  his  disciples,  and  saith 
unto  tlieni,  veiily  I  say  unto  you,  Tluit"  this  poor  widow 
hath  cast  more  in,  than  all  they  which  have  cast  into 
the  treasury : 

■44  For  all  tliei/  did  cast  in  of  their  abundance ;'  but 
she  of  her  want  did  cast  in  all  that  she  had,  ei'«><' all 
her  living. 

CHAPTER    XIII. 


43 mites,  which  make  a  farthing.  And  he  called  unto 
him  his  disciples,  and  said  unto  them,  Verily  1  say 
unto  you,  'I'liis   poor  widow  cast   in  more  tlian  all 

44  they  that  are  casting  into  the  trea-sury  :  for  they  all 
did  cast  in  of  their  superfluity ;  but  she  of  her  want 
did  cast  in  all  that  she  had,  even  all  her  living. 


AND''  as  he  went  out  of  the  temple,  one  of  his  disci- 
l)les  saith  unto  him,  Master,  see  what  manner  of 
stones  and  what  buildings  m-f  here  ! 

2  And  .Jesus,  answering,  said  unto  him,  Seest  thou 
these  great  buildings?  there"  shall  iu)t  be  left  one  stone 
upon  another,  that  shall  not  be  thrown  down. 


1  An'1>  a.s  he  went  forth  out  of  the  temple,  one  of 
his  disciples  saith  unto  hini,  '.M.-Uiter,  behold,  what 
manner  of  stones  and  wluit  manner  of  buildings  1 

2 And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Seest  thou  these  great 
buildings?  there  shall  not  be  left  here  oue  stone 
upon  another,  which  shall  not  be  thrown  down. 


a  2  Cor.  8:2-12 5  1  Chron.  29  :  3,  17  ;  2  Chron.  24  :  10 c  Deut.  2<  :  6 d  Matt.  24  :  1 ;  Luke  21:5 e  Luke  19:44. 1  Or,  Teachtr 


43.  He  called  unto  him  his  disciples, 

tliat  tliey  might  not  miss  .such  an  opiiortunity 
to  judge  an  act  by  its  moral  value.  They  were 
about  to  express  their  admiration  of  tlic  splendor 
of  the  temple  (chap.  i3 :  i) ;  but  had  they  none  for 
a  beautiful  action? — Slie  hath  ca.st  more  in, 
than  all  they.  First  stated,  tlien  proved. 
The  standard  is  willingness,  the  inward  grace 
of  charity;  but  willingness  cannot  be  measured 
apart  from  the  standard  of  ability.  She  gave 
out  of  her  penury  ;  they,  from  their  tibundance. 
Nominally,  they  gave  much  and  she  gave  little; 
but  really  tiiey  gave  little  and  she  gave  much, 
for  they  gave  their  fragments  and  she  her  all. 
Their  gifts  were  large,  while  hers  was  liberal. — 
"  Liberality  "  is  a  much-misused  word.  Derived 
from  the  Latin  Uhcr,  '•  free,"  it  refers  properly 
to  the  spirit  of  the  gift,  and  not  at  all  to  its 
amount.  Large  givers  may  be  illiberal,  and 
liberal  givei^s  may  not  have  much  to  give;  but 
it  is  the  cheerful  giver,  the  liberal  soul,  that 
God  loveth,  whether  his  gift  be  large  or  small. 
Tliere  is  a  beauty  in  the  great  gifts  of  the  rich, 
if  the  heart  is  right :  the  kingdom  of  (rod  needs 
them,  ami  the  Ma.ster  must  esteem  them  val- 
uable ;  but  tor  the  cheerful  gifts  of  the  poor  he 
has  a  peculiar  tenderness.  With  him  quality  is 
above  quantity.  (Compare  ]Matt.  10  :  42,  and 
an  illustration  of  the  genuine  liberality  in  2  Cor. 
8  :  l-.'j.) 

Here  follow,  probably,  the  request  of  the 
Greeks  to  see  Jesus  and  the  final  utterance  in 
the  temple,  ending  at  nightfall  with  tlie  solemn 
appeal,  "  Yet  a  little  while  is  the  light  with  you. 
Walk  while  ye  have  the  light,  lest  darkness 
come  upon  you"  (johu  12:20-36).  Then  he  went 
out  of  the  temple,  to  enter  it  no  more. 


1-37.  QUESTIONS  CONCERNING  THE 
D?:STRUCTION  OF  THE  TEMPLE,  AND 
THE  ANSWER.  Parallels,  Matt.  24  :  1-51  ; 
Luke  21  :  5-.S6. — The  parallelism,  however,  is 
not  perfect,  verses  12,  1.3  having  their  precise 
parallel  in  Matt.  10  :  21,  22.    Of  the  whole  dis- 


course, Matthew's  report  is  ,  the  fullest,  and 
Luke's  is  given  in  the  most  strongly-marked 
rhetorical  style.  The  divergences  in  expression 
are  very  great,  especially  in  Luke,  but  they 
probably  give  more  of  help  tlian  of  ditiiculty 
in  the  interpretation.  , 

1,  2.  The  time  is  the  evening  that  followed 
Tuesday.  In  the  Jewish  reckoning  it  belongs 
to  the  next  day,  but  we  naturally  connect  it 
with  Tuesday,  the  last  day  of  the  pul)lic  minis- 
try. The  ministry  wa.s  ended  now,  and  this 
was  the  last  departure  of  Jesus  from  his  Father's 
temple. — What  manner  of  stones  and  what 
buildings.  Literally,  "How  great!"  Luke 
adds  the  mention  of  the  votive  offerings  with 
which  the  temple  was  decorated,  the  chief  of 
which  had  been  added  by  Herod  the  Great. 
(See  allusions  to,  Josephus,  Ant.  17.  G.  3.)  The 
ciilling  of  our  Lord's  attention  now  to  the  splen- 
dor of  the  temple  is  commonly  explained  by 
reference  to  Matt.  23  :  37-3!),  wliere  he  had  just 
implicitly  announced  the  doom  of  the  temple, 
whereby  his  disciples  were  led  to  wonder  wheth- 
er .such  buildings  could  be  doomed.  But  it  may 
be  doubted  whether  the  language  of  Matt.  23  : 
37-39  was  uttered  at  that  time.  It  is  found,  al- 
most word  for  word,  in  Luke  13  :  34,  3r>,  in  the 
record  of  the  Pera-an  ministry,  before  the  hist 
arrival  of  Jesus  at  Jerusalem.  At  that  time  the 
language  would  be  not  only  natural,  but  most 
solemn,  and  intelligible  in  a  proplietie  sense : 
"  Ye  shall  not  .see  me  henceforth,  till  ye  shall 
say.  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  "  (see  vatt.  21 : 9) ;  but  on  tlip  hust  day  of 
the  ministry  this  would  be  an  extremely  ob- 
.scure  and  strange  prediction.  Most  probably, 
therefore,  Matthew  has  here  followed  his  custom 
of  grouping,  and  brotiglit  in  a  remark  tiiat  be- 
longs to  an  earlier  time. — But  the  admiration 
of  the  Galihvan  disciples  f>r  the  .splendid  temple 
needs  no  special  explanation.  At  this  tiuie  the 
magnificence  of  the  buildings  struck  tliem — or, 
as  in  Mark,  one  of  his  disciples,  very  likely 
Peter — and  the  exclamation  came  f)rtb. — The 


180 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


3  And  as  he  sat  upon  the  mount  of  Olives,  over 
against  the  temple,  Peter  and  James  and  John  and 
Andrew  asked  tihu  privately, 

4  Tell  us,  when  shall  these  things  be?  and  what  xhall 
be  the  sign  when  all  these  things  shall  be  fulfilled? 


3  And  as  he  sat  on  the  mount  of  Olives  over  against 
the  temple,  Peter  and  James  and  John  and  Andrew 

4  asked  him  i)rivately.  Tell  us,  when  sluiU  these  things 
be?  and  what  sliaU'be  the  sign  when  these  things  are 

5  all  about  to  be  accomplished?    And  Jesus  began  to 


answer  is  a  plain,  unrelieved  announcement  of 
the  coming  total  destruction  of  the  temple  and 
its  buildings:  there  shall  not  be  lelt  one 
stone  upon  another,  that  shall  not  be 
thrown  down. 

3.  These  words  were  said  as  lie  went  out 
from  the  temple  and  was  going  on  his  way 
(Matthew,  according  to  the  Revision).  Going 
toward  Bethany,  he  sat  upon  the  mount 
of  Olives,  over  against  the  tetiiple,  where 
the  whole  structure  rose  before  iiim.  By  this 
time,  probably,  the  dusk  of  evening  was  com- 
ing on.  The  questioners  were  Peter  and 
James  and  John  and  Andrew,  the  special 
three,  Tvith  the  brother  of  Peter  added ;  but  it 
does  not  follow  that  no  others  were  present. 

4.  [It  is  proper  to  remind  the  reader  that 
neither  the  general  editor  nor  the  Society  can 
be  responsible  for  the  interpretation  of  every 
passage  in  the  Commentary.  See  General 
Introduction,  p.  42  (2).  For  there  are  pas- 
sages whose  mciining,  or  whose  full  meaning, 
is  doubtful ;  and  the  following  must  be  re- 
garded as  one  of  them.  Dr.  Clarke  has  stated 
his  own  view  ably,  but  has  also  in  his  con- 
cluding remarks  presented  the  view  which 
appears  to  the  general  editor  correct.  Yet 
thesubject  is  so  important  that  it  may  be  well 
for  those  who  ctm  to  read  the  following  arti- 
cles: "The  Coming  of  Christ.  Matt.  24:  29- 
31,"  by  Dr.  Edward  Robinson,  Bib.  Sac, 
First  Series  (1843),  pp.  531-537;  "The  Escha- 
tology  of  Christ,"  etc.,  by  Dr.  C.  E.  Stowe, 
Bib.  Sac,  vol.  vii  (1850),  pp.  452-478;  "Ob- 
servations on  Matt.  24:  29-81,  and  parallel 
passages,"  etc.,  by  Prof.  M.  Stuart,  Bib  Sac, 
vol.  ix  (1852),  pp.  329-355  and  449-468.— A.  H.] 
The  actual  contents  of  the  inquiry  must  be 
carefully  noted.  There  are  two  questions,  of 
which  the  first  is  verbally  identical  in  the 
three  reports.  When  shall  these  things  be? 
The  second  is.  in  Luke,  iiterallj-,  "What 
(will  be)  the  sign  when  these  things  are  about 
to  come  to  pass?"  In  Mark,  What  shall  be 
the  sign  when  all  these  things  shall  be 
fulfilled  ?  or, "  When  these  things  are  all  about 
to  be  accomplisheil."  In  Matthew,  literally: 
"What  (will  be)  the  sign  of  thy  coming,  and 
of  the  consummation  of  the  age?  "  The  points 
of  inquiry  are,  therefore,  in  Mark  and  Luke: 
(1)  The  time  of  the  threatened  destruction  of 
the  temple,  and  (2)  the  sign   by  which  the 


nearness  of  that  time  can  be  known.  In  Mat- 
thew they  are  (1)  the  time  of  the  threatened 
destruction  of  the  temple,  and  (2)  the  sign 
by  which  it  can  be  known  that  the  time  of 
Christ's  coming  and  the  consummation  of  the 
age  is  near.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
the  three  evangelists  intended  io  record  the 
same  question.  Some  suppose,  however,  that 
Matthew  reports  three  questions  instead  of 
two:  "When  will  the  temple  fall?"  "What 
is  the  sign  of  thy  coming?"  "What  is  the 
sign  of  the  end  of  the  world?"  But  (1)  "end  of 
the  world"  is  an  unf(.)rtunate  mistraiislaticm, 
unfortunately  retained  by  the  Revisers,  which 
has  greatly  obscured  the  whole  disct)urse  and 
the  whole  subject  for  readers  of  the  English 
Bible.  "  The  consummation  of  the  age,"  on  the 
lips  of  aJew  of  tliat  period,  meant  the  comple- 
tion of  the  ante-Messianic  Jewish  age,  which 
completion  was  expected  to  come  to  pass  in 
the  establishment  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom. 
(2)  That  the  questioners  were  thinking  of  only 
one  event  under  the  two  forms  of  expression 
is  plain  from  the  fact  that  they  conceived  of 
one  sign  as  answering  for  both  :  "  What  (will 
be)  the  sign  (not  signs)  of  thy  coming  and  of 
the  consummation  of  the  age?"  They  thought 
thiit  what  would  show  them  one  would  show 
them   both.     Jesits   had   spoken   of  his  own 

coming    in    his    kingdom     (M»tt.  16:  28;  }lark9:  i), 

and  the  disciples  connected  what  he  now  said 
of  the  destruction  of  the  temple  with  what  he 
had  already  said  on  that  subject;  and  both 
the  destruction  of  the  temple  and  the  coming 
of  his  kingdom  they  associated  with  the  end- 
ing of  the  ante-Messianic  Jewish  age.  Mat- 
thew, with  his  Jewish  coloring,  gives  more  of 
the  language  of  Messianic  ex])ectiition,  but 
the  questions  are  the  same  in  all.  They  are 
as  simple  as  the  inquiries  of  children.  The 
disciples  were  innocent  of  doctrinal  intention, 
because  ignorant  of  the  whole  matter  of  in- 
quiry; and  we  are  not  justified  in  drawing 
doctrinal  inferences  from  the  form  of  their 
questions.  They  asked  simply,  "  When  will 
the  temple  fall?"  and  "What  will  be  the 
sign  that  the  fall  of  the  temple  is  near?" 

5.  The  discourse  that  follows  has  proved 
one  of  the  most  pcrjdexing  in  the  Bible.  The 
writer  of  this  Ctmimentary  does  not  expect  to 
reach  an  interpretation  that  is  free  from  diflS- 
culties.     He  wishes  faithfully  to  interpret  the 


Ch.  XIII.] 


MARK. 


181 


5  And  Jesus,  answering  them,  began  to  say,  Take"  I       say  unto  them,  Take  heed  that  no  man  lead  you 
heed  lest  any  man  deceive  you  :  6  astray.    Many  shall  come  iu  my  name,  saying,  I  am 

0  I'ur  luany  mIiuII  come'  in  my  name,  saying,  I  am 
Christ;  aud  shall  deceive  many. 


a  Jer.  29:8:  Epb.  i:  6;  2  Tbesd.  2:  3;  Rev.  20;  7,  8.... 6  Actno:  36-3!);  1  John  4:  1. 


text,  not  to  supplement  it.  Some  relief  from 
tiio  ijcrjiloxities  ina^-,  perlia|>s,  be  found  by 
rt'giirdiiig  tlie  following  hints,  which  seem 
worthy  to  be  followed.  1.  It  is  to  be  pre- 
sumed that  Jesus  meant  to  answer  the  ques- 
tions tiiat  were  asked  him.  2.  It  is  to  be 
presumed  that  he  meant,  in  general,  to  be 
unde-rstood,  not  that  he  intended  to  perplex 
his  hearers.  He  may  not  have  been  able  so 
to  speak  that  they  should  perfectly  understand 
him,  but  we  can  scarcely  suppose  that  he  in- 
tended to  answer  their  sincere  though  ignor- 
ant inquiry  by  leading  them  into  insoluble 
difficulties,  especially  new  ones  wiiich  they 
had  not  yet  encountered.  He  often  spoke  in 
parables,  but  never  in  riddles.  3.  Hebrew 
prophecy,  not  English  prose,  is  the  type  upon 
which  the  discourse  is  formed,  and  by  which 
it  is  to  be  interpreted.  Modern  readers  ea.-ilj' 
forget  into  how  prolific  a  seed-bed  of  Old  Tes- 
tament thought  tlie  words  of  Jesus  fell  when 
tiiey  entered  tlie  minds  of  his  di.sciples.  With 
the  tone  and  language  of  Hebrew  pro|)hecy 
they  were  thoroughly  familiar;  and  Hebrew 
prophecy  differs  widely  from  English  prose 
in  its  modes  of  expression.  4.  Such  a  dis- 
course may  be  expected  to  contain  notes  of 
time  that  will  serve  as  a  key  to  its  interpre- 
tation. A  prophetic  discourse  in  reply  to  a 
direct  question  as  to  time  will  probably  not 
be  left  indeterminate  as  to  the  time  of  its  ful- 
fillment. Such  notes  of  time,  when  found, 
must  be  carefully  regarded,  never  explained 
away.  5.  Upon  any  theory,  it  is  no  reproach 
to  an  inter|ireter  if  he  cannot  point  out  the 
exact  fulfillment  of  every  part.  Even  as  to 
what  is  already  past,  it  is  impossible  to  assume 
the  completeness  of  written  history.  How 
much  should  we  know  of  that  destruction  of 
the  temple  which  our  Lord  foretold,  if  it  were 
Tiot  for  a  hundred  pages  of  Josephus?  0. 
This  discourse  is  not  the  whole  of  Scripture, 
and  it  is  not  to  be  assumed  that  what  is  not 
found  here  cannot  be  found  anywhere  in  the 
word  of  God.  The  present  duty  is  to  study 
and  interpret  this  discourse,  not  to  unfold  the 
entire  scriptural  doctrine  on  the  points  which 
it  may  suggest.  That  doctrine  may  be  much 
larger  than  the  teaching  of  this  discnurse. 

OUTLINE.— Tlie  discourse  divides   itself 
into  four  parts:     \.   The  siffiis  of  the  coming 


event  (5-23)  ;  2.  The  event  itself  Apocalypti- 
cally portrayed  (24-27)  ;  3.  The  time  of  the 
event  (28-32)  ;  4.  Exhortation  to  vigilance 
(33-37).  These  divisions  are  substantially  the 
same  in  Matt.  24 — viz.  :  The  signs  (4-28) ; 
the  event  (29-31)  ;  the  time  (32-36)  ;  exhorta- 
tion (37-51).  The  same  also  in  Luke  21  :  The 
signs  (8-24) ;  the  event  (25-28)  ;  the  time 
(29-33);  exhortation  (34-36). 

I.  The  Signs  of  the  Coming  Events. 
Verses  5-23. — A  clear  note  of  time  is  given  in 
verse  14,  where  the  Christians  in  Judea  are 
commanded  to  flee  thence  to  the  mountains. 
This  note  of  time  distinctly  places  the  signs 
in  the  period  that  preceded  the  fall  of  Jerusa- 
lem, for  to  no  other  ))eriod  could  such  a 
command  apply.  Thus  this  section  of  the 
discourse  (0-23)  at  least  is  in  direct  response  to 
the  question  of  the  disciples  concerning  the 
destruction  of  the  temple.  Interpreters  are 
generally  agreed  in  this,  though  some  would 
find  a  second  ap|)lication  to  events  still  future. 
This  second  applicatit)n  many  would  find  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  discourse,  and  some  in 
the  whole.  On  the  question  of  such  a  double 
reference,  see  note  at  the  end  of  the  chapter. 
Jei<U8,  ansuering  them,  began  to  s.a> — or, 
as  in  the  Revisiim,  "Jesus  began  to  say  to 
them,"  a  form  of  speech  that  corresponds  to 
the  promise  of  weighty  utterance.  Compare 
the  opening  of  the  sermon   on   the   mount. 

(Matt.  5:2.) 

First  Sign:  The  Coming  of  False  Chi'ists. 
Verses  5,  6. — A  prediction  that  belongs  by 
internal  fitness  to  the  Jewish  period  alone.  In 
no  other  nation  or  period  would  the  coming 
of  false  claimants  to  the  Messiahship  be  a 
matter  of  importance  to  the  destinies  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  In  the  ])resent  age,  for 
example,  the  arising  of  such  claimants  among 
the  Jews  would  not  aflect  the  kingdom — the 
Christ  is  too  firmly  enthroned.  In  my  name. 
Not,  of  course,  claiming  to  be  Jesus  the  Naza- 
rene,  but  claiming  to  be  the  Messiah.  To 
come  in  that  name,  Jesus  says,  is  to  come  in 
his  name.  How  clear  an  assertion  of  his  own 
right  to  it!  Before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  the 
land  of  the  Jews  was  overrun  with  impostors, 
who  sought  to  inflame  religious  zeal  for  politi- 
cal purposes.  "These  were  such  men  as  de- 
I  ceived  the  people  under  pretence  of  divine 


182 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


7  And  when  ye  shall  hear  of  wars  and  rumors  of 
wars,  be"  ye  not  troubled  :  for  such  things  must  needs 
be  ;  but  the  end  shall  not  be  yet. 

8  For  ualiou  shall  rise  against  nation,  and  kingdom 
against  kingdom  ;  and  there  shall  be  earthquakes  iu 
divers  places,  and  there  shall  be  famines  and  troubles : 
these  oi-K  the  beginnings  of  sorrows. 

9  \  But  take  heed  to  yourselves:  for  they  shall*  de- 
liver you  up  to  councils;  and  in  the  synagogues  ye 


7  he;  and  shall  lead  many  astray.  And  when  ye  shall 
hear  of  wars  and  rumors  of  wars,  be  not  troubkd: 
these  things  must  needs  come  to  pass  ;  but  the  end  is 

8  not  yet.  For  nation  shall  rise  against  nation,  aud 
kingdom  against  kingdom :  there  shall  be  earth- 
quakes in  divers  places  ;  there  shall  be  famines : 
these  things  are  the  beginning  of  travail. 

9  But  take  ye  heed  to  yourselves:  for  they  shall 
deliver  you  up  to  councils;  aud  in  synagogues  shall 


a    s.  27:  3;  46:  1,  2;  Prov.  3: 


John  11 :  1,  27 b  Matt.  10 :  17,  etc. ;  Rer.  2  :  10. 


inspiration,  but  were  for  procuring  innova- 
tions and  changes  of  government;  and  these 
prevailed  with  the  multitude  to  act  like  mad- 
men, and  went  before  into  the  wilderness,  as 
pretending  that  God  would  show  them  there 
the  signal  of  liberty."  (Joseplius,  Wars,  2. 
13.  4.)  (See  Acts  21  :  38  for  an  example.) 
The  time  of  these  pretenders,  according  to 
Josephus,  was  during  the  procuratorship  of 
Felix  (A.  D.  53-60),  and  the  trouble  of  Paul 
at  Jerusalem  fell  in  the  midst  of  the  period 
of  these  excitements.  Take  heed,  says 
Jesus,  lest  any  man  deceive  you  ;  for  these 
shall  deceive  many. 

Second  Sign:  Wars  and  Calaniities.  Verses 
7,  8. — Verse  8  is  explanatory  of  the  first  part 
of  verse  7,  and  the  last  part  of  verse  7  is  the 
resulting  word  of  counsel.  They  should  hear 
of  wars  actual  nnd  terrible,  and  rumors  of 
wars,  threatening  still  more  terrible  things, 
but  born  of  excitement  and  fear;  actual  trou- 
bles sore  enough,  but  giving  rise  to  fear  of 
worse.  There  is  no  need  to  point  out  special 
wars  and  rumors  as  the  ones  that  he  had  in 
mind,  for  it  was  a  period  of  disturbance:  four 
Roman  emperors  murdered  in  swift  succes- 
sion, and  the  world  agitated  by  the  changes; 
the  Jews  suffering  in  strifes  and  insurrections 
in  various  places;  the  Roman  power  threat- 
ening more  and  more  in  Palestine,  and  bring- 
ing liome  strong  fear  to  the  Jews  who  dwelt 
there.  One  chapter  in  Josephus  (  Wars,  2. 18) 
amply  illustrates  and  confirms  our  Lord's 
warning.  As  for  troubles  in  the  realm  of 
nature,  earthquakes  are  known  to  have 
been  more  frequent  in  that  century  than  in 
almost  any  other  in  the  history  of  man,  and 
famines  aflflicted  many  countries.  The  words 
and  troubles  are  omitted  in  the  best  text. 
Luke  adds,  "and  pestilences."  These  are 
true  signs;  but  they  are  preliminary  signs, 
not  final.  Be  ye  not  troubled,  for  such 
things  must  needs  be  ;  but  the  end  shall 
not  be  yet.  Luke — "the  end  is  not  imme- 
diately." What  end?  Rest  interpreted  by 
contrast  with  the  word  besinning  in  verse  8: 
these   are   the   beginnings   of  sorrows — 


literally,  "The  beginning  of  birth  pangs  are 
these."  Not  yet  is  the  end  of  tlie  birth  pangs, 
not  yet  is  the  end  of  the  preliminary  signs 
and  sorrows;  for  nation  shall  rise  against 
nation,  and  kingdom  against  kingdom  ; 
there  shall  be  earthquakes,  there  shall  be 
famines, — and  these  are  tiie  beginning  of 
birth  pangs,  not  the  end;  the  end  shall  not 
be  yet.  "The  beginning  of  birth  pangs." 
Both  words  are  significant.  This  is  only  the 
beginning,  and  there  is  yet  more  to  be  en- 
dured— a  word  of  warning.  But  tliese  are  not 
fruitless  pains:  they  are  like  the  pains  of  tra- 
vail. By  them  the  new  spiritual  kingdom  is 
to  be  brought  into  the  world.  When  they 
are  ended,  the  Old  Dispensation  will  be  a 
thing  of  the  past,  but  the  new  will  be  fully 
born.  This  is  a  word  of  hope.  This  caution 
against  fear,  and  this  thought  that  these  were 
birth  pains,  may  well  have  been  watchwords 
of  patience  and  courage  among  the  Christians 
when  the  trouble  came. 

Third,  Sign :  Persecution  Against  Chris- 
tians. Verse  9.— But  take  heed  to  your- 
selves. The  pronoun  should  be  expressed, 
and  that  emphatically.  "But  do  ye  take 
heed  to  yourselves"  is  not  too  strong.  You, 
in  such  troubles,  must  have  an  eye  to  your 
conduct.  Here  note,  to  be  rentembered 
through  the  whole  discourse,  that  when  our 
Lord  uses  the  emphatic  you  (humeis),  it  is  to 
be  presumed  that  he  refers  to  his  immediate 
hearers.  Take  heed  is  not  a  caution  to  keep 
out  of  danger,  but  a  warning  against  thought- 
less and  unworthy  actions.  They  shall  de- 
liver you  up  to  councils.  The  council  was 
the  local  court  attached  to  the  synagogue, 
which  had  power  in  cases  of  religious  offense. 
(Matt.  5:  22.)  The  beating  in  synagogues  is  illus- 
trated in  Acts  22 :  19  and  26  :  11,  Saul  of  Tar.nis 
having  a  hand  in  the  work.  Thus  far  the 
persecution  is  Jewish,  but  the  words  that 
follow  point  to  similar  testimony  before 
Gentile  authorities.  The  word  for  rulers, 
"governors,"  is  always  applied  in  the  New 
Testament  to  oflicers  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
as  Pilate,  Felix,  Festus.     It  would  seem  that 


Ch.  XIII.] 


MAKK. 


ISi 


shall  be  beutCD ;  and  ye  shall  be  brought  before  rulers 
and  kings  lor  uiy  sake,  for  a  ttstiiiiouy  against  them. 

10  Aud"  the  gospel  must  tirst  be  published  among  all 
ualious. 

11  iiul  when  they  shall  lead  yon,  and  deliver  you  up, 
take  no  thought  beforehand  wliat  ye  shall  speak, 
neither  do  ye  premeditate;  but  whatsoever  shall  be 
given  you  in  that  hour,  thai  speak  ye:  for  it  is  not  ye 
that  hpeak,  but*  the  Holy  dhost. 

1-'  >ow    the   brother*^  shall    betray   the    brother  to 

death,  and  the  father  the  son  :  and  eiiildren  shall  rise 

up  against  l/ieir  parents,  and  shall  cause  them  to  be 

put  to  death. 

13  And  ye  shall  be  hated''  of  all  men  for  my  name's 


ye  be  beaten  ;  and  before  governors  and  kings  shall 
ye  stand  lor  my  sake,  for  a  testimony  unto  them. 

10  And  the  gospel  must  first  be  preached  unto  all  the 

11  nations.  And  v\hen  they  lead  you  tojuitymenl,  and 
deliver  you  up,  be  not  anxious  beforehand  what  ye 
shall  speak  :  but  whatsoever  shall  be  given  you  in 
that  hour,  that  speak  ye :  for  it  is  not  ye  that  sjieak, 

12  but  the  lloly  Si>irit.  And  brother  shall  deliver  up 
brother  to  death,  and  the  father  his  child;  and 
children  shall  rise  ui>  against  parents,  and  'cause 

13  ihem  to  be  put  to  death.  And  ye  shall  be  hated  ol 
all  men  for  my  name's  sake:  but  he  that  endureth 
to  the  end,  the  same  shall  be  saved. 


a  Halt.  28  :  19 ;  Rev.  li  : 


.6  Acts  2:  4;  4  :  8,  31 ;  6  :  10....cUic.  7    6....d  Luke  6  :  22  ;  John  17  :  14. 1  Or, put  them  to  death. 


under  tlie  word  kings  Roiiiaii  emperors  must 
be  included,  and  lliestanding  before  governors 
and  kings  must  be  a  standing  there  as  "pris- 
oners of  tiie  Lord."  (Epu. 4:  i.)  Yet  it  is  to 
be  lor  a  testimony  unto  them — (not  against 
tlieni),  whereby  even  goverm)rs  and  kings 
shall  be  made  to  know  of  him  who  is  King  of 
kings  and  Lord  of  lords.  Paul  is  the  most 
familiar  example  of  all  this,  standing  before 
Felix,  Festus,  Agrippa,  Nero.  Other  apostles 
had  similar  experiences,  though  we  see  them 
mainly  in  their  relation  to  Jews.  Matthew 
adds  here:  "They  will  kill  you."  See  Acts 
12:  2  for  the  fate  of  one  of  the  four  ques- 
tioners; concerning  another,  see  Rev.  1:9; 
another  still,  John  21 :  19,  20. 

Fourth  Sign:  Diffusion  of  the  Gospel. 
Verse  10. — And  the  gospel  must  first  be 
published  (preached)  among  all  nations. 
Literally,  "unto  all  the  nations" — i.  e.,  as 
far  as  to  all  the  nations.  Matthew  has,  liter- 
ally, "in  all  the  inhabited  world."  Luke 
omits.  The  natural  moaning  is,  that  the  good 
news  of  the  kingdom  must,  before  the  end  of 
the  birth  pangs,  be  widely  proclaimed  among 
the  existing  nations.  Until  it  could  be  reason- 
ably said  tliat  this  had  been  done,  the  end  of 
the  sorrows  was  not  to  be  looked  for.  How 
long  and  how  severe  the  pains  would  be,  the 
dis('i])les  might  infer  from  the  fact  that  the 
whole  inhabited  world  was  to  be  visited  with 
the  message  before  tliey  could  end.  It  might 
seem  enough  that  they  must  suffer  "perils  of 
their  own  countrymen,"  hatreds  and  cruelties 
of  the  Jews,  but  they  must  look  forward  to 
they  knew  not  how  many  "perils  of  the  Gen- 
tiles," in  a  field  as  wide  as  the  known  world. 
This  word  concerning  all  the  nations  is  a  step 
toward  the  great  command  written  in  Matt. 
28:  19.  See  also  Mark  14:  9.  As  to  the  ful- 
fillment of  the  prediction,  we  find  Paul  affirm- 
ing that  the  gospel  is  already  known  "in  all 
the  world."  (cm.  i:6.)  See  also  Rom.  1:  8. 
He  says,  again,  that  it  is  "preached  in  all 


creation  under  heaven"  (so,  correctly,  in  the 
Revision,  Col.  1 :  23),  and,  as  if  in  explicit 
reference  to  this  prediction,  "made  known  to 
all  nations  for  the  obedience  of  faith."  (Rom. 
16:  26.)  All  this  was  written,  of  course,  years 
before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  The  amazingly 
rapid  difl'usion  of  the  gospel  before  thesweej)- 
ing  awa^'  of  the  Old  Dispensation  is  a  well- 
known  matter  of  history. 

Counsel  to  the  persecuted.  Verses  11-13. — 
Before  coming  to  the  fifth  and  last  s'gn  of  the 
predicted  event,  Jesus  makes  a  digression, 
specifying  some  details  of  ])ersecution  and  in- 
structing his  disciples  how  to  act.  The  case 
is  that  of  actual  arrest.  Take  no  ihouglit 
beforehand  what  ye  shall  speak.  The 
best  text  omits  Neither  do  ye  premeditate. 
The  word  translated  take  no  thought  is  the 
same  as  in  Matt.  6:  25,  and  the  sentence  is 
properly  rendered  in  the  Revision  "Be  not 
anxious  beforehand."  The  command  is  not 
against  reflection  or  suitable  preparation,  but 
against  anxiety  about  the  defense  that  must 
be  made  before  the  tribunal.  That  defense 
should  be  provided  for:  the  Holy  Spirit 
should  speak  in  them.  In  Luke — sublime 
self-assertion!  —  "I,"  the  pronoun  emjihatic 
in  the  Greek — "I  will  give  you  a  mouth  and 
wisdom  which  all  your  adversaries  shall  not 
be  able  to  withstand  or  to  gainsay."  Accord- 
ingly, they  were  to  speak  what  might  be 
given  them  ;  and  with  this  promise  they  might 
dismiss  all  anxious  fear.  A  fresh  warning  is 
now  added  of  the  intensity  of  the  persecution. 
Not  only  in  courts  and  sj-nagogues  should  it 
be  met  with,  but  at  home  and  amt)ng  kindred. 
The  brother  shall  betray  the  brother  to 
death — i.  e.,  report  him  as  a  Christian  and 
enter  complaint  that  will  result  in  his  death. 
By  the  same  means,  parents  shall  cause  the 
death  of  children,  and  children  of  ))arents. 
Compare  Matt.  10:  34-37.  Ye  shall  be  hated 
of  all  men.  A  strong  expression  for  the 
hatred  that  should  meet  them  on  every  side, 


184 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


sake  :  but  he"  that  shall  endure  unto  the  end,  the  same 
shall  be  saved. 

14  1[  But  when  ye  shall  see  the  abomination  of  des- 
olation spoken  ot''  by  Daniel  tlie  prophet,  standing 
where  it  ought  not  (let  him  that  readeth  uudersiand,) 
then  let  them  that  be  in  Judea  tlee  to  the  mountains : 


14  But  when  ye  see  the  abomination  of  desolation 
stamling  where  he  ought  not  (let  him  that  readeth 
understand),  then  let  them  that  are  in  Judea  flee 


a  Dan.  12  :  12  ;  Rev.  2  ;  10. . .  .6  Dan.  9  :  27. 


abundantly  justified  by  the  terms  in  which 
the  early  Christians  were  spoken  of  in  liter- 
ature, both  by  Jews  and  by  Gentiles.  For 
my  name's  sake.  See  1  Peter  4:  16;  Acts 
5:  41.  It  was  exactly  for  tliis  that  they  did 
suffer.  Tertullian  says:  "We  are  tortured 
when  we  confess  our  crime,  and  set  free  when 
we  deny  it;  for  the  strife  is  about  a  Name." 
Hated  by  all,  yet  there  is  a  promise  to  "him 
that  overcometh."  He  that  shall  endure 
unto  the  end,  the  same  shall  be  saved— 
i.  e.,  he  that  persists  in  faith  and  godliness  and 
devotion  to  the  kingdom  until  these  calamities 
are  overpast,  or  so  long  as  God  calls  him  to 
endure,  he  shall  possess  the  salvation  of  which 
the  kingdom  has  promise.  Parallel,  in  spirit, 
are  all  the  promises  to  the  conqueror  in  Rev. 
2,  3. 

Fifth  and  Final  Sign  :  TJie  Invasion  of  the 
Sacred  Place.  Verse  14. — All  the  other  signs 
have  been  preliminary,  but  this  marks  the 
coming  of  the  actual  end  of  the  birth  pangs. 
"Then  shall  the  end  come"  (Matt.),  comple- 
mentary to  "the  end  shall  not  be  yet"  (ver. 7), 
the  end  of  these  sorrows,  which  are  sorrows 
of  hope.  At  length  the  birth  pangs  are  to 
be  concluded.  Spoken  of  by  Daniel  the 
prophet  is  rightly  omitted  here  by  the  Re- 
visers. The  words  are  genuine  in  Matthew, 
but  not  in  Mark.  So  the  fifth  sign  is,  in 
Mark,  When  ye  shall  see  the  abomination 
of  desolation  standing  where  it  ought 
not.  In  Matthew,  "  When  ye  see  the  abom- 
ination of  desolation,  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the 
I)rophet,  standing  in  the  holy  place."  Luke 
says  nothing  of  the  abomination  of  desolation, 
but  he  perhaps  retains  a  trace  of  the  expres- 
sion when  he  says,  "Then  know  that  her  des- 
olation is  at  hand."  But  Luke  throws  great 
light  upon  the  obscure  phrase  by  substituting 
for  it,  "When  ye  see  Jerusalem  compassed 
with  armies."  The  discussion  of  the  relation 
of  this  passage  to  the  Book  of  Daniel  belongs 
to  the  Commentary  on  Matthew,  where  alone 
the  allusion  to  Daniel  is  genuine.  The  ren- 
dering of  the  Revisers,  "  Standing  where  he 
ought  not,"  appears  to  be  due  to  the  fact  that, 
in  the  text  which  they  adopt,  the  participle 
"standing"  is  in  the  masculine  gender  [heste- 


kota,  instead  o{  hestos,  which  is  neuter).  The 
participle  thus  fails  to  agree  with  the  noun 
"abomination"  (bdelugrnu),  which  is  neuter; 
and  the  Revisers  appear  to  have  felt  that  such 
an  irregularity  must  have  been  intentional, 
and  must  indicate  that  the  abomination  was 
conceived  of,  partly  at  least,  in  a  personal 
manner. 

The  abomination  of  desolation — i.  e., 
the  abominable  thing,  or  power,  v/hose  work 
it  is  to  make  desolate.  The  parallel  and  ex- 
planatory language  of  Luke,  already  cited, 
proves  that  the  phrase  refers  in  some  way  to 
the  Roman  armies,  half  personified,  perhaps, 
as  indicated  by  the  participle — the  desolating, 
insulting  heathen  power,  with  its  abomina- 
tions of  false  worship.  Standing  where  it 
ought  not  is  equivalent  to  Matthew's  "stand- 
ing in  the  holy  place";  and  the  holy  place  is, 
most  naturally,  the  temple  and  its  consecrated 
ground.  The  fifth  sign  is,  therefore,  "  When 
ye  see  the  invading  Roman  power  pressing 
up  to  the  temple,  and  even  into  it."  This  is 
the  final  sign  that  the  time  is  at  hand.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  suppose  that  our  Lord  was 
referring  exclusively  to  any  one  act  in  the 
history  of  the  siege,  so  that  the  sign  should 
be  recognizable  solely  in  some  single  moment. 
"  When  the  siege  is  so  far  advanced  that  the 
enemy  is  closing  around  the  temple"  — this  is 
the  sign.  The  siege  of  Jerusalem  began  at 
about  the  beginning  of  the  year  70  a.  d.  ; 
operations  against  the  tower  of  Antonia  and 
the  part  of  the  city  in  which  the  temple  stood 
began  in  the  month  of  May;  the  tower  was 
taken  on  the  lltli  of  June;  the  temple  was 
fired  on  the  15th  of  July;  the  siege  of  the 
upper  city,  enclosed  within  the  ancient  wall 
of  David  and  Solomon,  was  soon  after  begun; 
and  about  the  12th  of  September  the  Romans 
entered  through  the  breach  they  had  made  in 
that  Willi.  See  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible, 
Art.  ".Jerusalem."  Thus,  in  the  course  of  the 
siege,  there  was  time  for  Christians  to  watch 
the  progress  of  events  toward  the  fulfillment 
of  this  sign. 

Let  him  that  readeth  understand  is  par- 
enthetical,commonly  rend  asa  remark  of  .Testis, 
meaning,  "  Let  him  that  readeth  the  Book  of 


Ch.  XIII.] 


MARK. 


185 


15  And  let  him  that  is  on  tlie  house-top  not  go  down 
into  the  house,  neither  enter  l/ierein,  to  take  any  thing 
out  of  his  liouse. 

m  And  lut  liini  that  is  in  the  field  nut  turn  back 
again  for  to  take  up  his  garment. 

17  Hut  woo  to  theiu  that  are  with  ehild,  and  to  theui 
that  give  siuk  in  lliose  days! 

18  Aud  pray  ye  that  your  llight  be  not  in  the  winter. 


15  unto  the  mountains:   and  let  him  that  is  on  the 

housetop  not  go  down,  uorenter  in,  to  take  anything 

1()  out  of  his  h(Hise;  and  let  liini  that  is  in  Ihc  held  not 

17  return  hack  to  take  his  cloak.     Bui  woo  unio  them 
that  are  with  child  and  to  them   that  give  suck  in 

18  tliose  days !     Aud  pray  ye  that  it  be  not  in  the 


Daniel  understand  it,  so  as  to  make  this  ai)pli- 
cation  of  liis  language ''  ;  but  better  read  as  a 
remark  of  the  Evangelist,  meiining,  "Let 
him  that  readeth  this  forewarning  from  the 
Lord  understand  it,  and  bt  r.-ady,  when  the 
sign  ai)|)t'ars,  to  act  U)jon  tlie  accompanying 
command."  In  Mark  there  is  no  allusion  to 
Daniel,  and  when  he  counsels  him  that 
rcaileth,  he  can  address  his  words  to  no 
other  than  him  that  readeth  tiiis  book. 
When  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark 
were  written,  the  time  had  not  yet  come, 
though  the  preliminary  signs  must  have 
begun  to  ai>pear.  During  the  progress  of 
those  signs,  until  the  last  one  should  appear, 
the  Lord  had  commanded  nothing  but  brave 
endurance  ;  but  the  last  sign  was  to  be  to  them 
thesignal  forfliglit.  Therefore  it  was  especially 
important  that  this  sign  sliould  be  recognized 
and  understood.  It  looks  as  if  the  preachers 
of  the  evangelical  story  had  been  in  the 
habit  of  pointing  this  prediction  by  a  sharp 
call  to  attention,  and  Matthew  and  Mark  took 
it  up  in  their  written  gospels  with  a  kind  of 
nota  bene:  "Let  the  reader  understand." 
That  Mark  wag  writing  forGentiles  is  scarcely 
an  objection,  for  this  discourse  had  been  made 
familiar  to  Jewish  and  Gentile  believers  alike 
before  it  was  here  written  out.  Luke,  who 
seems  to  have  written  later,  omits  the  appeal. 
(1)  Command  for  the  Time  of  the  Fifth 
Sicjn.  Verses  15,  16. — The  command  is  for 
the  Christians  who  may  be  in  Jiidea  to  flee 
instantly  to  the  mountains  when  the  sign 
appears.  To  the  mountains — general,  de- 
noting any  ]ilace  of  refuge  in  the  wild  coun- 
try; not  unlikely  with  a  slight,  but  intentional 
reference,  to  the  story  of  Lot,  and  the  com- 
mand given  him  to  "escape  to  the  mountains" 
from  the  doomed  city  of  Sodom.  The  com- 
mand is  given  with  more  detail  by  Luke: 
"Then  let  them  that  are  in  Judea  flee  unto 
the  mountains,  and  let  them  that  are  in  the 
midst  of  her  (Jerusalem)  depart  out;  and 
let  not  them  that  are  in  the  country  enter 
therein."  Great  emphasis  is  laid  on  the 
promptness  of  the  flight.  On  the  housetop. 
The  houses  were  flat-roofed,  and  Christians 
might  be  on  the  roofs  of  their  houses  for 
prayer  (acuioi  9)^  for  rest,  or  for  observation. 


In  some  cases  there  were  outside  stairs,  and 
tlie  roofs  of  adjacent  houses  were  sometimes 
connected,  so  that  the  nearest  way  to  flee 
might  be  across  the  roof  of  another  house. 
Instant  flight  was  commanded,  without  so 
much  as  going  down  through  the  iiouse  to 
take  anything;  and  the  man  who  might  be 
at  work  in  the  field  without  his  coat  or  outer 
garment,  was  to  flee  the  shortest  way,  not 
going  home  for  it.  The  one  thing  was  to  get 
away  from  Judea.  Josephus  (  Wars,  4.  9.  1.) 
records  the  fact  that  during  the  earlier  part 
of  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  many  escaped  from 
the  city  to  places  of  safety.  Eusebius  (EccL 
Hist.,  3  .5.)  is  our  authority  for  the  statement 
that  the  Christians  seized  the  providential 
opportunit}'  for  escape,  and  withdrew  from 
Judea  to  Pella,  in  the  mountains  of  Gilead, 
where  they  found  a  safe  refuge. 

(2)  Further  Warning  of  the  Sorrows  of  that 
Time.  Verses  17-20. — Woe  is  an  exclamation 
of  pity  here,  not  of  condemnation.  The  tender 
heart  of  Jesus  foresaw  the  suflerings  of  women 
with  child,  and  with  children  in  their  arms. 
The  suflerings  of  such  in  the  siege  were  among 
its  darkest  horrors.  Tlitjse  his  friends  would 
escape,  but  the  flight  would  have  its  lu)rrors 
too;  and  that  these  migiit  be  alleviated  as 
much  as  possible,  be  would  have  them  pray. 
Pray  ye  that  your  fliglit  be  not  in  the 
winter — in  the  best  text,  "that  it  be  not  in 
winter."  ilatthew  alone,  writing  for  Jews, 
adds,  "nor  on  the  Sabbath  day."  Apart 
from  any  scruples  of  the  Jewish  Christians 
about  the  Sabbath  of  the  law,  there  might  be 
special  difficulties  in  fleeing  on  that  day 
through  a  land  where  the  Sabbath  was  hon- 
ored as  in  Judea.  As  for  the  winter,  the 
hardships  of  hasty  traveling  in  winter  in  Pal- 
estine are  very  great,  as  all  who  have  tried  it 
testify  ;  and  these  were  bidden  to  flee  without 
pausing  to  take  with  them  even  the  most  com- 
mon comforts.  Notice  how  perfectly  unre- 
vcaled  is  the  precise  time  of  the  event.  It  is 
proper  matter  for  praj'er.  He  intimates  that 
it  would  not  be  in  vain  for  them  to  pray  con- 
cerning such  matters  as  the  time  when  the 
Roman  armies  should  press  into  the  holy 
place.  They  might  pray  concerning  the 
season  of  the  year,  and  even  the  day  of  the 


186 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


19  For"  in  those  days  shall  be  affliction,  such  as  was 
not  from  the  beKimiitig  of  the  creiitiou  which  God 
created  unto  this  time,  neither  shall  be. 

20  And  exceiJt  that  the  Lord  liad  shortened  those 
days,  uo  flesh  should  be  saved  :  but  for  the  elect's  sake, 
whom  he  hath  chosen,  he  hath  shortened  the  days. 

21  And  tlien  if  any  man  shall  say  to  you,  Lo,*  liere 
is  Christ;  or,  Lo,  he  is  there;  believe  hiru  not: 

22  For  false  Christs  and  false  prophets  shall  rise,  and 
shall  shew  signs  and  wonders,  to  seduce,  if  it  were  i)os- 
sible,  even  the  elect. 


19  winter.  For  those  days  shall  be  tribulation,  such 
as  there  hath  not  been  the  like  from  the  beginning 
of  the  creation  which  G(jd  created  until  now,  and 

20  never  shall  be.  And  except  the  Lord  had  shortened 
the  days,  no  flesh  would  have  been  saved:  bui  fur 
the  elect's  sake,  whom  he  chose,  he  shoriened  the 

21  days.  And  then  if  any  man  shall  say  unto  you,  Lo, 
here  is  the  Christ;  or,  Lo,  there;  believe  '(7  not: 

22  for  there  shall  arise  false  Christs  and  false  j)ropbeis, 
and  shall  shew  signs  and  wonders,  that  they  may 


a  Dau.  12  :  1 ;  Joel  2:2 h  Lulio  17  :  23.- 


woek,  in  which  the  announcement  of  the  final 
sign  should  reach  them.     As  a  matter  of  fact, 
it  was  not  in  the  winter. 
For  in  those  days  shall  be  affliction — 

correctly,  in  the  Revision,  "those  days  shall 
be  tribulation,"  or,  "a  tribulation."  The 
days  sliall  be  so  heavy  with  woe  as  to  be 
themselves  an  affliction,  a  burden  of  misery. 
Such  as  was  not  from  the  beginning  of 
the  creation  which  God  created  unto 
this  time.  Characteristic  expansion  by  Mark 
of  wliat  is  briefer  in  Matthew,  "from  the  be- 
ginning of  tiie  world."  A  part  of  the  same 
expression  is  found  in  2  Peter  3:  4.  Neither 
shall  be.  Except,  of  course,  in  the  case  now 
mentioned.  Compare  the  parallel  language 
of  Luke:  "For  these  are  days  of  vengeance, 
that  all  things  that  are  written  may  be  ful- 
filled. .  .  .  And  there  sliall  be  great  distress 
upon  the  land,  anil  wrath  upon  this  people"  — 
i.  e.,  upon  Israel.  See  1  Thess.  2:  14-16, 
where  the  same  announcement  of  wrath  is 
recorded.  [Does  not  Paul  refer  to  calamities 
that  came  upon  the  Jews  before  he  wrote  to 
the  Thessalonians?— A.  H.] 

Except  that  the  Lord  had  shortened 
those  days,  no  flesh  should  be — or  would 
have  been — saved.  No  mortal  man  within 
the  circle  of  which  the  context  speaks  would 
have  been  preserved  alive.  This  limitation  of 
the  field  of  thought  is  obvious,  and  this  is  the 
only  sense  tliat  the  context  will  allow  to  tlie 
word  saved.  If  the  destruction  had  been 
permitted  to  go  on  as  long  as  the  passions  of 
men  would  have  continued  it,  the  land  would 
have  been  swept  of  people.  The  Lord,  wlio 
short'  ned  the  days,  is  Jehovah,  the  God  of 
the  old  covenant.  Jesus  does  not  give  this 
title  to  himself  The  shortening  of  tiie  days  is 
mentioned  in  the  past  tense:  He  hath  short- 
ened the  days — i.  e.,  they  were  shortened  in 
the  counsel  of  God,  which  in  all  this  was  to  be 
fulfilled.  Various  ctiuses  conspired  to  shorten 
tlie  siege:  (1)  Herod  Agrippa  had  begun  to 
strengthen  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  in  a  way 
wtiich,  if  finished,  would  have  rendered  them 


"too  strong  for  any  human  power"  (Jose- 
ph us),  but  was  stopped  by  orders  from  Clau- 
dius (a.  d.  42  or  43) ;  (2)  the  Jews,  being 
divided  into  factions,  had  totally  neglected  to 
make  pr(wision  to  stand  a  siege;  (3)  the  maga- 
zines of  corn  and  provisions  had  been  burned 
just  before  the  arrival  of  Titus  with  his  be- 
sieging army ;  (4)  Titus  arrived  suddenly, 
and  the  Jews  voluntarily  abandoned  parts  of 
the  fortifications.  {Alford,  quoted  from  Gres- 
weil.)  It  is  tor  the  elect's  sake,  whom  he 
hath  chosen,  that  the  Lord  shoriened  tlie 
days.  The  elect,  here,  are  the  believers  in 
Ciirist,  who  are  concerned  in  these  troubles — 
i.  e.,  the  Jewish  Christians.  These,  like  otliers 
who  believed,  he  had  ciiosen  to  be  "  heirs  of 
the  kingdom"  (James2:5),  and  these  he  would 
keep  alive  for  further  use  on  the  earth ;  tliere- 
fore  in  his  providence  the  time  of  destruction 
was  limited.  This  was  the  "remnant"  exist- 
ing then  in  Israel,  as  in  the  days  of  Elijah 
(i  Kings  19: 18),  and  as  when  the  other  prophets 
spoke  (isa.  1:9;  Ezei(.  11: 13)  the  faithful  part,  for 
the  sake  of  which  God's  counsels  were  gra- 
cious. This  "remnant"  was  the  true  Israel 
in  the  days  of  the  prophets,  and  the  Chris- 
tians were  the  true  Israel  in  this  time  of  tribu- 
lation. See  Pliil.  3:3;  also  Rom.  2  :  28,  29. 
Here,  then,  was  the  outcome  of  our  Lord's 
personal  ministry;  many  were  called  among 
the  Jewish  people,  but  few  were  chosen 
(Matt.  12:  u) — i.  «.,  the  elect  were  few.  Com- 
pare 2  Peter  1:  10:  "Wherefore  the  rather 
give  diligence  to  make  your  calling  and  elecv 
tion  sure," — make  sure  that  you  are  found, 
not  only  among  the  many  who  are  called,  but 
among  the  few  who  are  chosen.  The  many 
perished  in  the  guilt  of  tiieir  rejection,  while 
for  the  sake  of  the  few  the  days  of  tribulation 
were  shortened. 

(3)  Repeated  Cdution,  Conclurltnq  the  First 
D'lvhinn  of  the  Dlf^cninse.  Verses  21-23.— 
False  Christs  and  false  prophets  ngain,in 
the  wilder  and  more  terrible  excitements  of 
the  "end"  of  the  troubles.  The  culmination 
of  the  woe  brings  the  climax  of  fanaticism 


Ch.  XIII.] 


MARK. 


187 


23  But"  take  ye  heed ;  behold,  I  have  foretold  you  all 
things. 

24  f  But  in  those  days,  after  that  tribulation,''  the 


23  lead  astray,  if  possible,  the  elect.    But  take  ye  heed : 
behold,  I  liave  told  you  all  thiiig.s  beforehand. 

24  But  in  those  days,  after  that  tribulation,  the  sun 


a  2  Pet.  3  :  17.... ii  Dan.  U:l;  Zeph.  1  :  15,  13. 


and  fraud.  The  presence  of  the  deceivers  is 
still  prominent  in  Josepiuis.  As  for  tlie  signs 
and  wonders,  that  age  was  full  of  men  who 
claimed  supernatural  i)ower.  See  Acts  19: 
13-10,  and  for  examples  witiiin  or  near  the 
Jewish  circle,  Simon  Magus  (Acts  8:9-:i4)  and 
Elyuuis  (13:6-12).  The  eflbrt  of  the.«e  impos- 
tors would  be,  in  the  time  now  predicted,  to 
seduce — or  lead  astray — if  it  were  possi* 
ble,  even  (the  best  text  omits  'even')  the 
elect  —  i.  e.,  to  rally  the  Chrisliaiis,  with 
others,  to  the  standard  of  some  false  Christ. 
But  they  were  expressly  warned.  If  any 
man  shall  say  unto  you,  Lo,  here  is  (the) 
Christ,  or,  Lo,  he  is  there,  believe  him 
not.  Matthew  adds:  "If  they  shall  say  unto 
you,  liehold,  he  is  in  the  desert,  go  not  forth  ; 
Behold,  he  is  in  the  secret  chambers,  believe 
it  not."  'In  the  desert':  see  passage  from 
Josephus  cited  under  verse  6.  'In  the  secret 
chambers':  as  if  waiting  in  concealment 
till  a  force  of  supporters  should  be  gathered. 
But  the  Master  assured  his  disciples  that  he 
would  not  be  there,  to  be  found  by  any  such 
seeking,  and  other  Christ  there  was  not,  to  be 
found  by  any  seeking.  The  events  of  which 
he  spoke  were  not  to  be  searched  out  in  des- 
erts or  in  secret  chambers;  they  would  flash 
on  the  world  like  the  lightning,  and  upon  the 
sinful  Jerusalem  the  woe  would  come  like  the 
eagle  upon  the  prey.     (Matthew.) 

The  signs  of  the  fall  of  the  temple,  for 
which  the  disciples  had  asked,  had  now  been 
given,  five  in  number,  namely:  T/ie  coming 
of  false  Christs ;  vmrs  and  cnlamities ;  'per- 
secution against  Christians ;  the  diffttsion  of 
the  gospel ;  and  the  gathering  of  the  Roman 
armies  ahont  the  temple.  The  first  four  were 
premonitory,  being  more  general  in  their 
character;  the  fifth  was  to  he  a  definite  event, 
and  was  to  serve  to  tliem,  if  they  were  near 
Jerusalem,  as  a  signal  or  trumpet  call  to 
flight.  Our  Lord  now  repeated  the  caution 
given  in  verse  9.  But  take  ye  heed— rather. 
"But  do  ye  take  heed,  "  ye  being  strongly 
emphatic.  In  saying  I  have  foretold  yon 
all  thin$rs,  he  atfirmed  that  he  had  told  them 
enough,  so  that  they  could  know  whenever 
the  day  was  approaching.  (Heb.  lo:  25.)  The 
first  question  (vi-rse  4),  "When  shall  these 
things  be?"  has  not  yet  been  answered;  but 


the  second,  "What  shall  be  the  sign  when  all 
these  things  shall  be  fulfilled?  "  has  been  an- 
swered. 

II.  TiiK  Event  Itself,  Apocalyptic- 
ally Portrayed.  Verses  24-27.— Our  Lord 
now  advances  from  the  signs  to  that  which 
they  foreshowed. 

It  is  important  to  observe  the  jirominence 
of  Old  Testament  language  in  this  paragrai)h. 
In  the  Greek  textof  Westcott  and  llort,  forty- 
four  words,  out  of  a  total  of  seventy-one,  are 
printed  in  the  type  that  denotes  quot.-ition 
from  the  Old  Testament;  in  the  jiarallel  para- 
graph in  Matthew,  fifty-five  words,  out  of  a 
total  of  ninety-two.  The  paragraph  in  Luke 
differs  so  largely  that  a  count  can  scarcely  be 
brought  into  comparison. 

The  great  question  here  is  tliat  of  time. 
The  notes  of  time  must  therefore  be  carefully 
studied.  In  Mark's  report,taken  b3'  itself,  there 
is  nodiflSculty  in  understanding  them,  or  in  de- 
termining the  time  to  which  the  i)assage  refers 
— it  is.  In  those  days,  after  that  tribula- 
tion. No  hearer  of  this  language  would 
think  of  any  time  but  that  next  following 
the  tribulation  of  Jerusalem  just  described. 
If  our  Lord  referred  to  any  other  period, 
there  must  have  been  a  large  omission  of 
important  matter  before  these  words  in 
Mark's  report,  or  else  there  must  have  been 
some  unrecorded  emphasis  or  gesture  that 
would  give  to  his  words  the  meaning.  But  in 
those  days  (notthesp)  after  that  tribula- 
tion (not  this).  But  it  is  artificial  and  arbi- 
trary' to  suppose  such  an  unrecorded  element 
in  our  Lord's  discourse.  Mark  can  scarcely 
have  understood  him  to  point  away  to  some 
new  and  distinct  period  without  indicating  it 
in  his  words.  As  to  the  possibility  of  an 
omission  in  Mark's  report,  see  below.  Mat- 
thew's report,  taken  by  itself,  is  still  more 
definite,  "Immediately  after  the  tribulation 
of  those  daj's."  It  is  difficult  to  see  why 
Matthew  introduced  the  word  "immediately" 
(which  certainly  means  "immediately"),  if 
he  did  not  understand  that  the  event  now  to 
be  predicted  was  at  once  to  follow  the  events 
already  foretold.  Thus  Matthew  and  JIark 
place  the  event  that  is  now  to  be  jiortrayed 
just  after  the  tribulation  that  preceded  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem.     The  theory  of  nn  omission 


188 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


is  as  follows:  Luke  has  i'^^-'^^),  "But  woe  unto 
tliem  that  are  with  child,  and  to  them  that 
give  suck,  in  those  days!  for  there  shall  be 
great  distress  in  the  land,  and  wrath  upon 
this  people";  then  he  proceeds,  adding  to 
Matthew  and  Mark,  "And  they  shall  fall  by 
the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  shall  be  led  away 
captive  into  all  the  nations;  and  Jerusalem 
shall  be  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles  (or 
nations,  same  word  as  just  above),  until  the 
times  of  the  Gentiles  (or  nations)  be  ful- 
filled'" ;  and  then  he  returns  to  substantial 
parallelism  with  Matthew  and  Mark,  saying, 
"And  there  shall  be  signs  in  the  sun,"  etc. 
Here,  in  verse  24,  it  is  often  thought  Luke 
opei-.s  to  view  a  long  period  that  is  not  recog- 
nized in  Matthew  and  Mark.  The  clause 
"until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  be  falfilled" 
is  taken  as  equivalent  to  "until  the  fulness 
of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in" — i.  e.,  to  the 
kingdom  of  Christ  (Kom.  u:25);  and  thus  the 
prediction  in  Luke  is  supposed  to  stretch  on 
to  the  end  of  the  time  which  is  a  day  of  grace 
to  the  Gentiles.  Then  Luke  is  understood, 
at  verse  '2-5,  to  go  on  from  the  end  of  that 
time,  and  to  place  the  signs  in  the  sun,  etc., 
beyond  it;  and  then  this  "period  of  the  Gen- 
tiles" is  introduced,  or  assumed,  in  the  reading 
of  the  record  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  so  that 
in  those  days  sliall  refer  to  the  distant  future 
to  wliicii  Luke  has  led  us.  Concerning  this 
interpretation  :  (1)  It  rests  upon  what  is  prob- 
ably a  misunderstanding  of  the  clause,  "until 
tlie  times  of  the  Gentiles  be  fulfilled."  This, 
probably,  is  not  parallel  to  "until  the  fulne.*s 
of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in  "  (Rom.  ii:  25) — more 
naturally,  "  until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  be 
fulfilled"  means  simply  "as  long  as  God 
shall  be  pleased  to  use  the  Gentiles  for  this 
purpose" — not  the  "day  of  grace"  of  the 
Gentiles,  but  the  time  assigned  to  the  Gentiles 
(i.e.,  to  "the  nations,"  among  whom  "the 
]»eople"  were  to  be  led  captive)  for  the  execu- 
tion of  God's  judgment  upon  Jerusalem,  a 
time  which  is  left  wholly  indeterminate  as  to 
length.  So  Meyer  and  Grimm.  (2)  It  rests 
upon  a  wrong  idea  of  the  relation  of  state- 
ments concerning  the  lapse  of  time  to  contin- 
uous discourse.  It  assumes  that  after  the 
mention  of  a  given  period  the  discourse  goes 
on  from  the  end  of  that  period,  whereas  it  may 
just  as  naturally  return  to  the  starting  point. 
"  I  am  going  to  Eurojie  for  a  year;  I  will  write 
to  you,"  does  not  mean  "I  will  write  to  you 
after  the  end  of  the  year"— it  means  "I  will 
write  to  you  after  going  to  Europe."  So 
here.     According  to  Luke,  our  Lord  tells  of 


the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem,  and  leaves  the 
ancient  city  to  be  "  trodden  down  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  be  ful- 
filled," and  then  goes  on  to  speak  of  the 
significance  of  the  overthrow  in  the  progress 
of  his  kingdom.  (3)  It  rests  upon  an  incor- 
rect theory  of  the  harmony  of  the  gospels. 
It  does  not  recognize  the  evangelists  as  inde- 
pendent witnesses,  each  of  whom  is  historically 
trustworthy,  but  assumes  that  a  correct  report 
of  facts  is  to  be  obtained  only  by  the  process 
of  combination.  (4)  It  thus  introduces  great 
difiBculties  as  to  the  inspiration  and  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  evangelists.  According  to 
this  theory,  Matthew  and  Mark  omitted  an 
essential  part  of  our  Lord's  discourse,  and 
thereby  distinctly  applied  a  great  prediction 
to  the  wrong  period.  If  they  conveyed  an 
incorrect  impression  as  to  the  meaning  of  our 
Saviour  in  so  important  a  matter,  it  is  difficult 
to  see  how  they  can  be  the  inspired  and  trust- 
worth}'  guides  that  they  have  been  supposed 
to  be  in  the  knowledge  of  Jesus.  (5)  This 
interpretation  can  scarcely  be  reconciled  with 
the  solemn  language  of  verse  30,  reported  by 
all  the  evangelists:  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
this  generation  shall  not  pass  till  all  these 
things  be  done.  The  natural  meaning  of 
that  language  is  perfectly  at  one  with  the 
natural  meaning  of  the  words.  In  those 
days,  after  that  tribulation.  Both  pre- 
dictions promise  an  early  fulfillment.  See 
note  on  verse  30. 

Hence  we  are  compelled  to  place  the  event 
that  is  now  to  be  portrayed  "immediately," 
as  Matthew  says,  "after  the  tribulation  of 
those  days."  From  telling  of  the  troubles 
that  preceded  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  Jesus 
was  proceeding  to  speak  of  what  should  fol- 
low them.  But  the  portrayal  of  the  event  to 
which  the  tribulation  led  is  made  in  a  style 
quite  unlike  that  of  the  preceding  discourse. 
Thus  far,  all  has  been  expressed  in  plain, 
literal  terms;  but  the  culminating  event, 
being  one  of  the  great  crises  in  the  history  of 
God's  kingdom,  is  described  after  the  manner 
of  the  ancient  prophets,  in  lofty,  apocal^'ptic 
language.  It  is  portrayed  first  in  its  reference 
to  the  past  (24,25).  and  then  in  its  reference  to 
the  future  (26. -n).  In  reference  to  the  past, 
the  impending  event  is  the  overthrow  of  Jeru- 
salem, and,  with  it,  of  the  Old  Dispensation. 
In  reference  to  the  future,  it  is  announced  as 
the  coming,  or,  at  least,  as  a  coming,  of  the 
Son  of  man. 

24,  25.  If  this  were  to  be  rend  as  the  lan- 
guage of  English  prose,  founded  on  science — 


( 


Ch.  XIIL] 


MARK. 


189 


sun  shall  be  darkened,  and  the  moon  shall  not  give 
her  light, 

:;")  A  lid"  the  stars  of  heaven  shall  fall,  and  the  powers 
that  are  in  heaven  shall  be  shaken. 


shall  be  darkened,  and  the  moon  shall  not  give  her 

25  light,  and  tlie  stars  shall  be  falling  froui  heaven,  and 

the  powers  that  are  in  the  heavens  shall  be  shaken. 


a  UtL.  l.t :  10 ;  M  :  20,  23  ;  Jer.  4  :  .8:  2  Pel.  3  :  10,  12  ;  Rev.  6  :  12-U  ;  20  :  11. 


i.  e.,  on  facts  as  they  are  known  to  be— it 
would  tell  of  astroiU)iiiical  wonders,  and  of 
impossibilities  too:  The  stars  of  heaven 
shall  tall.  But  it  would  be  quite  otherwise 
in  Hebrew  prophecy,  to  which  tiie  hearers 
would  at  once  perceive  that  our  Lord  was 
alluding.  The  imagery  of  these  verses  is  the 
familiar  imagery  of  destruction,  especially  of 
national  destruction.  Closely  similar  lan- 
guage is  used  in  Isa.  13:  10,  in  denouncing 
destruction  upon  Babylon;  in  Isa.  24:  19-2:3, 
in  speaking  of  the  enemies  of  Israel  more 
generally;  in  Isa.  34:  4,  9,  10,  of  Idumaea;  in 
Ezek.  32:  7,  8,  of  Egypt;  in  Amos  8:  9,  of 
the  northern  kingdom  of  Israel;  in  Joel  2: 
30,  31,  of  the  events  that  attended  the  setting 
up  of  the  kingdom  of  Ciirist.  Compare  Acts 
2:  19,  20,  and  Dr.  Hackett's  note.  Ezekiel's 
language  concerning  Egypt  is  (•12:  7,8),  "When 
I  shall  i)ut  thee  out" — i.  e.,  extinguish  thee — 
"  I  will  cover  the  heaven,  and  make  the  stars 
thereof  dark:  I  will  cover  the  sun  with  a 
cloud,  and  the  moon  shall  not  give  her  light. 
All  the  bright  lights  of  heaven  will  I  make 
dark  over  thee,  and  set  darkness  on  thy  land, 
saith  the  Lord  God."  Isaiah's  language  con- 
cerning Babylon  is  (i3:  10).  "The  stars  of 
heaven  and  the  constellations  thereof  shall 
not  give  their  light:  thesun  shall  be  darkened 
in  his  going  forth,  and  the  moon  shall  not 
cause  her  ligiit  to  shine."  Concerning  Idu- 
maea (3*:  4),  "And  all  the  host  of  heaven  shall 
be  dissolved,  and  the  heavens  shall  be  rolled 
together  as  a  scroll :  and  all  their  host  shall 
fall  down,  as  the  leaf  falleth  off  from  the  vine, 
and  as  a  falling  fig  from  the  fig  tree."  The 
language  of  our  Lord  in  verses  24,  25,  is  quoted 
almost  exactly  from  the  Septuagint  of  Isa.  13: 
10  and  34:  4.  It  is  almost  impossible  for 
readers  trained  in  modern  science  to  imagine 
how  his  language  here  would  sound  to  hearers 
who  had  never  heard  of  modern  science,  but 
were  thoroughly  familiar  with  this  prophetic 
imagery ;  3-et  to  such  it  was  addressed,  and 
from  their  point  of  view  it  must  be  inter- 
preted. Tliey  would  instantly  perceive  that 
it  was  the  imagery  of  national  overthrow,  the 
extinguishing  of  the  luminaries  of  heaven 
corresponding  well  to  the  destruction  of  all 
that  is  great  and   glorious   in    national    life. 


They  would  never  look  for  the  fulfillment  of 
this  prediction  in  the  realm  of  physical  na- 
ture; they  would  understand  our  Lord  to  say 
that  Jerusalem  and  the  Jewish  nation  must 
follow  in  the  way  of  Babj'lon,  Egypt,  and 
Iduinaia,  and  be  utterly  destroyed.  Hence, 
it  is  not  necessary,  or  possible,  to  point  out 
what  calamities  corresponded  to  eadi  sym- 
bolic prediction.  The  falling  of  the  stars  need 
not  be  defined  here,  any  more  than  in  Isaiali, 
nor  the  shaking  of  the  powers  of  heaven. 
Such  predictions  were  never  intended  for  lit- 
eral fulfillment,  for  the  siin))le  reas(m  that 
they  are  incapable  of  it.  Plumptre's  remark 
is  true:  "Our  Lord  speaks  here  in  language 
as  essentialh'  ai)ocal\-ptic  as  that  of  St.  John 
(RcT.  8:  12),  and  it  lies  in  the  ver^-  nature  of  such 
language  that  it  i>recludes  a  literal  interpre- 
tation." Thus  the  impending  event  is  de- 
scribed in  its  relation  to  the  past  and  to  exist- 
ing institutions,  as  an  event  similar  to  the 
overthrow  of  Babylon  and  of  Egypt,  a  visita- 
tion upon  Jerusalem  such  as  God  formerly 
brought  upon  other  ungodly  cities.  In  this 
view,  it  is  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem — i.  e., 
the  sweeping  away  of  the  Old  Dispensation. 
The  significance  that  made  it  worthy  of  so 
lofty  a  prophetic  description  resided  in  tlie 
latter  name,  not  in  the  former — not  in  that  it 
was  the  destruction  of  a  city,  but  in  that  it 
was  the  abandonment  of  the  city  of  the  Great 
King,  the  withdrawal  of  all  sanctity'  from 
what  had  been  the  seat  of  God's  revelation, 
and  the  abolishing  of  a  once  sacred  dispensa- 
tion. It  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  event 
was  the  mere  fall  of  Jerusalem:  it  was  the 
overthrow  of  a  set  of  instituti(uis  once  divine, 
but  now  abandoned.  The  fall  of  Jerusalem 
is  an  event  greatly  underestimated  in  the  pop- 
ular Christian  judgment.  In  its  connection 
with  the  old  and  with  the  new,  it  stands 
among  the  most  important  events  in  the  his- 
tory of  revelation.  Yet  its  significance,  being 
spiritual,  was  spiritually  discerned,  and  only 
as  the  progress  of  the  kingdom  revealed  it. 
Luke  abbreviates  the  reference  to  signs  in 
heaven,  and  makes  more  prominent  the  con- 
fusion and  the  perplexity  of  men  and  of 
nations. 
26.  In   place  of  the   old  comes  the   new. 


190 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIIL 


26  And"  then  shall  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming    26  And  then  shall  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in 
in  the  clouds,  with  great  power  and  glory.  27  clouds  with  great  power  aud  glory.    And  then  shall 


a  oh.  H:  62  ;  Dan.  7  ;  9-14  ;  Matt.  16  :  27  ;  24  :  30 ;  Acts  1  :  11 ;  1  TLess.  4  :  Ki ;  2  Tbess.  1  :  7,  10 ;  Hev.  1  :  7. 


Looking   backward,    the  great  event   is  the 

sweeping  awny  of  Jeru.«alem  and  the  whole 
Jewish  cult  and  system;  looking  (orward,  it 
is  the  corning,  or,  at  least,  a  conting,  of  the 
Son  of  man— the  Son  of  man  coming  in 
the  clouds,  with  power  and  great  glory. 
As  before,  we  must  inquire  what  the  language 
would  mean  to  hearers  familiar  with  the  lan- 
guage of  Hebrew  prophecy ;  and  we  must 
remember  that  we  are  still  in  the  region  of 
proplietic  symbols.  The  language,  which 
serves  as  the  keynote  of  the  Apocalypse  of 
John  (Rev.  1:  7),  is  borrowed  directly  from  the 
Apocalypse  of  Daniel.  See  Dan.  7:  13,  14: 
'"I  saw  in  the  night  visjon.s,  and  behold,  one 
like  the  Son  of  man  caine  with  the  clouds  of 
heaven,  and  came  to  the  Ancient  of  davs,  and 
they  brought  him  near  before  him.  And 
there  was  given  him  dominion,  and  glory, 
and  a  kingdom,  that  all  people,  nations  and 
languages  .should  serve  him:  his  dominion  is 
an  everlasting  dominion  which  shall  not  pass 
away,  and  his  kingdom  that  which  shall  not 
be  destroyed."     Note   two   important   facts: 

(1)  That  this  scene  represents,  not  the  com- 
pleting of  a  kingdom  already  established,  but 
the  establishing  or  "giving"  of  a  kingdom; 

(2)  that  tliis  scene  has  its  place  in  the  vision, 
not  in  the  interpretation — so  that,  according 
to  the  method  that  prevails  in  Daniel,  it  is  not 
a  picture  of  a  literal  scene  in  human  history, 
but  a  symbolic  picture,  to  which  a  parallel  in 
human  events  is  to  be  shown  the  prophet. 
For  the  interpretation— i.  e.,  for  the  corre- 
sponding fact  in  history,  see  Dan.  7:  27: 
"And  the  kingdom  and  dominion,  and  the 
greatness  of  the  kingdom  under  the  whole 
heaven,  shall  be  given  to  the  people  of  the 
saints  of  the  Most  High,  whose  kingdom  is  an 
everlasting  kingdom,  and  all  dominions  shall 
serve  and  obey  him."  The  kingdom  thus 
represented  is  one  of  a  succession  of  powers 
upon  the  earth.  See  the  whole  chapter.  The 
preceding  powers  have  been  great  world- 
powers,  ungodly  and  tyrannical,  but  now  the 
dominion  is  given  to  "the  people  of  the  saints 
of  the  Most  High."  The  prominence  of  "the 
people"  here  is  too  important  to  be  over- 
looked; what  is  foretold  may  not  unfitly  be 
called  the  regime  of  the  godly  people— i.  e., 
after  the  reign  of  tyrants  and  ungodly  powers 
there  shall  come  a  reign  of  the  Son  of  man  in 


and  through  his  people;  and  of  the  establish- 
ment of  this  reign  the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
man  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  was  given  to 
Daniel  as  the  prophetic  symbol.  Into  the 
midst  of  such  prophetic  imagery  in  the  minds 
of  his  hearers  did  this  prediction  of  Jesus  fall, 
and  by  knowledge  of  this  prophetic  reference 
in  Daniel  would  it  be  interpreted.  It  would 
seem  that  they  must  have  understood  him  to 
mean,  in  verse  26,  "After  the  tribulation  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  overthrow  of  the  prepara- 
tory dispensation,  they  shall  see  the  Messiah 
gloriously  manifested  in  the  establishment  of 
his  spiritual  kingdom  among  men."  For 
similar  highly  wrought  imagery  applied  to 
interpositions  of  God  in  history,  see  Ps.  97: 
1-5;  50:  1-4;  Isa.  19:  1;  64:  1,2;  Zech.  9: 
14,  and  specially  Ps.  18:  5-16.  Of  course, 
this  manifestation  could  not  be  a  single  event, 
occurring  in  a  day  ;  it  must  be  a  great  historic 
work  and  ])rocess,  stretching  on  he  does  not 
say  how  far,  involving  the  use  of  innumera- 
ble natural  and  supernatural  agencies,  and 
including  whatever  manifestations  of  himself 
his  purposes  for  the  great  future  may  contem- 
plate. Compare  the  very  important  passage, 
Matt.  24:  64:  "  Hereafter"— or,  correctly,  as 
in  the  Revision,  "Henceforth"  —  "ye  shall 
see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  right  hand 
of  power  and  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven;" 
where  our  Lord  says  that  the  coming  in  the 
clouds  shall  begin  from  that  time,  "the  hour 
when  the  Son  of  man  shall  be  glorified,"  and 
shall  be  seen  from  that  time  on.  What  can 
it  be  but  the  establishment  of  his  spiritual 
kingdom,  begun  from  his  death  and  glorifica- 
tion, and  receiving,  from  the  divine  point  of 
view,  a  vast  impulse  and  extension  when  the 
Old  Dispensation  was  swept  off  from  the  earth  ? 
"  The  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  "  (Matt.1,  if  it  were 
on  earth,  might  naturally  mean  the  ensign, 
or  standard,  of  his  kingdom,  set  up  that  men 
might  gather  round  it.  Compare  Isa.  11: 
10-12;  49:  22;  62:  10.  But  since  it  is  "in 
heaven,"  it  will  most  naturallj'mean  the  pre- 
liminary tokens,  the  earliest  forth-streaming, 
of  the  Messiah's  spiritual  glory  ;  a  sign  which 
was  seen  in  the  work  of  Christ's  Spirit  before 
the  time  of  the  event  that  he  had  foretold. 
On  the  whole  paragraph,  see  an  article  on 
"Our  Lord's  Use  of  the  Old  Testament"  in 
The  Expositor,  April,  1881,  where  the  relation 


Cu.  XIII.] 


MARK. 


191 


27  Ami  then  shall  he  send  his  angels,  and  shall  gath- 
er t<))<etlKr  his  elect  I'roni  the  I'mir  wiii<ls,  fiuiu  the 
ulteruiost  part  ol  the  earth,  to  the  utlermust  jiart  of 
heaven. 

jh  >«ow  learn  a  parable  of  the  tig  tree;  When  her 
braneh  is  yet  tender,  and  puttelh  forth  leaves,  ye 
know  that  sutnuicr  is  near: 

2\)  .Si)  ye  in  like  manner,  when  ye  shall  see  tliese 
tliin^is  CMiue  to  pa::^,  know  that  it  is  nigh,  even  at  the 
doors. 


he  send  forth  the  angels,  and  shall  gather  together 
hi.s  elect  from  the  (uur  wind.>,  from  tlie  uttermost 
part  of  the  earth  to  the  uttermost  part  of  heaven. 

28  Now  from  the   tig  tree  learn    her  parable:  when 
lier  branch  is  now  become  tender,  and  pulieth  forth 

29  its  leaves,  ye  know  that  the  summer  is  nigh  ;  even 
so  ye  also,  when  ye  see  these  things  coming  to  pass. 


of  the  passage  to  the  hmguage  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament is  phiiiily  illustrated. 

Thus  the  iiiiiieiidiiig  event  is,  in  its  rehitioii 
to  the  future,  the  coming,  or  at  least  a  com- 
ing, of  the  Son  of  Man.  But  this  coming  is 
not  to  be  searched  for  as  an  instantaneous 
event.  It  did  not  consist  in  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  It  was  not  an  event  recognizable 
by  all  men,  and  estimated  by  them  at  its  true 
importance.  No  great  movement  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  has  been  so  recognized  and  esti- 
mated. "The  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not 
witli  observation."  Tiie  coming  that  oc- 
curred within  the  limits  of  time  here  given 
was  the  placing  of  the  new  kingdom  in  the 
world  free  from  all  restraints  and  hindrances 
of  the  Old  Dispensation.  In  the  period  of  the 
gospel  Christ  reigns  in  and  through  men. 
After  the  removal  of  the  earlier  dispensation, 
the  world  was  open  and  free  to  his  spiritual 
kingdom,  and  his  spiritual  powers  had  the 
field  to  tliemselves,  no  longer  contradicted  by 
an  opposing  system  that  claimed  to  represent 
the  same  God.  Those  powers  have  ever  since 
b*?en  throwing  down  and  building  up  at  the 
will  of  their  Lord,  destroying  the  works  of 
the  devil  and  bringing  in  the  reign  of  God 
and  righteousness.  See  (5)  in  note  at  the  end 
of  the  cliapter. 

27.  The  consequence  of  this  coming  is  to  be 
the  gathering  of  his  chosen  into  his  kingdom. 
His  angels  are  not  necessarily  beings  of  one 
class  alone,  as  Gabriel  and  Michael  (of  whom 
we  speak  as  if  we  knew  more  about  them  than 
we  do).  John  the  Baptist  is  the  "angd"  of 
Mai.  3:  1.  Yet  undoubtedly  there  is  allusion 
here  to  the  ministry  of  superhunuin  holy 
beings,  parallel  to  that  of  Heb.  1 :  14.  The 
comprehensive  word  seems  to  include  all  mes- 
sengers and  agencies,  human  and  super- 
human, that  help  the  Son  of  man  to  gather  to 
him  his  elect — all  "ministers  of  his  that  do 
his  pleasure,"  of  every  kind,  if  only  they 
serve  the  purpose  of  his  kingdom.  The 
"gathering"  of  his  elect  into  the  kingdom  is 
for  time  and  for  eternity ;  the  whole  earthly 
work  of  God  in  man  is  included  in  it.  and  the 
final   gathering  of  souls  into  his  glory  is  an 


indispensable  part  of  it.  The  field  from 
which  they  come  shall  be  world-wide,  now 
that  all  Jewish  restrictions  are  gone;  thus  is 
fulfilled  Luke  13:  28,29.  See  also  Matt.  8: 
11,  12,  where  the  believing  Koman  centurion 
is  recognized  by  our  Lord  as  the  first  fruits  of 
this  great  Gentile  multitude.  Matthew  adds 
that  his  angels  shall  be  sent  forth  i literally) 
"with  a  great  trump,"  which  is  naturally  to 
be  regarded  as  the  symbol  of  proclamation 
Observe  the  close  and  suggestive  resemblance 
of  Kev.  14:  6,  7.  The  mention  of  gathering 
God's  people  by  the  trumpet  would  remind 
the  hearers  of  I.«a.  27:  12,  13;  Zech.  2:  6; 
Deut.  30:  4 — passages  that  tell  of  the  regath- 
ering  of  God's  scattered  ones  f(jr  his  service. 
The  phrase  'from  the  uttermost  part  (liter- 
erally,  "corner")  of  the  earth  to  the  utter- 
most part  ("corner")  of  heaven,'  is  sufficient 
proof,  if  proof  were  needed,  of  the  complete 
absence  from  the  discourse  of  modern  forms 
of  thought  respecting  the  structure  of  the 
world.  The  earth  is  conceived  of  as  a  plain, 
upon  the  corners  of  which  the  corners  of  the 
heaven  appear  to  rest. 

III.  The  Time  of  the  Event.  Verses 
28-32.— Here  are  three  .«ayings:  (1)  The  time 
is  to  be  recognized  from  the  fulfillment  of  the 
signs;  (2)  it  will  be  within  the  present  genera- 
tion ;  (3)  it  cannot  be  more  closely  designated. 

28,  29.  The  first  thought  is  parabolically 
set  forth:  "Learn  the  nearness  of  the  event 
from  its  signs,  as  you  learn  the  nearness  of 
the  summer  from  the  opening  foliage  of  the 
fig  tree.  Only  j-esterday  morning  they 
had  seen  a  fig  tree  in  leaf  just  there  on  the 
Mount  of  Olives.  (Mark  n :  1.1.)  Ye  know  that 
summer  is  near.  The  ye  is  not  emphatic. 
Some  manuscripts  read,  to  the  same  efiect : 
"  It  is  known  that  summer  is  near."  But  the 
next  ye  is  emphatic,  precisely  as  in  verses  9 
and  23:  So  ye  in  like  manner,  when  ye 
shall  see  these  things  come  to  pass — i.  e., 
these  that  have  been  specified  as  signs.  They 
might  e.\pect,  therefore,  to  see  them.  The 
.subject  of  is  nigh  is  indeterminate.  The 
translation  preferred  hy  the  Revisers,  "He  is 
nigh,"  is  favored  by  the  context,  since  a  per- 


192 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


30  Verily  I  pay  unto  you,  that  this  generation  sliall 
uot  piiss,  till  all  these  things  be  duue. 

31  ileaveu  and  earth  shall  pass  away :  but"  my  words 
shall  uot  pass  away. 


30  know  ye  that  Uie  is  nigli,  evtn  at  the  doors.     Verily 
1  say  unto  you,  This  geueialiou  shall  uot  jiass  away, 

31  until  all  these  things  be  accomplished.    Heaven  and 
earth  shall  pass  away  :  but  uiy  words  shall  not  pass 


son  rather  than  an  event  is  said  to  be  at  tlie 
doors.  Compare  James  5:  9:  "Behold,  tlie 
jtidge  standeth  before  the  door."  As  the  fig 
leaves  assured  tliem  of  the  approach  of  sum- 
mer, so  th(!se  signs  were  to  certify  tlie  disci- 
ples that  Christ  was  at  the  doors,  ready  to 
enter  in  that  "coming"  of  which  he  liad 
spoken. 

30.  The  second  of  the  three  sayings  con- 
cerning the  time  is  bare  and  literal.  There  is 
nothing  apocalyptic,  or  even  parabolic,  here. 
It  is  the  announcement  of  the  limit  of  the 
time.  This  generation  shall  not  pass, 
till  all  these  things  be  done,  or  be  accom- 
plished, or  come  to  pass.  Introduced  by  our 
Lord's  formal  and  solemn.  Verily,  I  say 
unto  you.  All  these  things  may  be,  as  in 
verse  29,  all  that  have  been  promised  as  signs; 
or,  more  com])rehensively,  all  that  have  been 
mentioned  in  the  discourse,  including  the  im- 
pending event  itself.  The  latter  is  the  more 
natural,  after  the  announcement  of  verses 
24-27,  but  there  is  practically  no  diiference 
between  the  two,  for  our  Lord  has  already 
said  that  when  the  signs  are  completed  the 
event  itself  will  be  in  act  of  accomi)lishment. 
This  generation — i.  e.,  the  men  now  living. 
The  teaching  is  the  same  as  in  Matt.  16:  28: 
"There  be  some  standing  here  which  shall 
not  taste  of  death  till  they  see  the  Son  of  man 
coming  in  his  kingdom."  See  note  on  Mark 
9:  1.  That  this  is  the  natural  sense  of  genea, 
"generation,"  all  admit;  and  hence  it  has 
always  been  felt  that  this  verse  would  have 
been  more  easily  explained  if  the  second  ad- 
vent had  occurred  within  that  generation. 
Other  meanings  have  very  nsiturally  been 
proposed  for  the  word  here:  bj'  some,  "the 
human  race"  ;  by  others,  "this  class  of  peo- 
ple"— i.  «.,  the  elect,  or  the  believers  on 
Christ,  the  class  that  has  just  been  mentioned. 
Both  meanings,  however,  are  artificial,  and 
unsupported  by  any  usage  of  the  word  in 
Greek.  Many  others  explain  :  "This  nation, 
the  Jewish  race,  shall  not  cease  to  exist  till  all 
these  things  are  done."  But  this  too  is  an  un- 
natural use  of  the  word,  which  has  no  valid 
support  in  Greek  usage,  only  approximate 
parallels  having  been  found.  Meyer's  re- 
mark ("iJe  cjenea  haute — t.  e.,  the  present 
generation,   which   genea   with   haute   means 


throughout  in  the  New  Testament")  may  be 
proved  correct  b^'  consulting  the  following 
passages,  which  are  all  in  which  the  phrase 
occurs:  Matt.  11:  16;  12:  41,  42,  45;  23:  36; 
24:  34;  Mark  8:  12,  38;  13:  30;  Luke  7:  31; 
11 :  29,  30,  31,  32,  50,  51 ;  17:  25;  21 :  32;  Acts 
2:  40;  cotnpare  Heb.  3:  10.  Unless  this  re- 
mark of  our  Lord  forms  a  very  striking  ex- 
ception, "the  men  now  living"  is  tlie  only 
sense  that  is  given  in  the  New  Testament  to 
the  phrase,  "this  generation."  Of  the  force 
of  genea  here,  Alexander  (whose  interpreta- 
tion of  the  disct>urse  would  find  another 
meaning  more  congenial)  says:  "  Unless  we 
forge  a  meaning  for  the  word  in  this  place 
which  is  not  only  unexampled  elsewhere,  but 
directly  contradictory  to  its  essential  meaning 
everywhere,  we  must  understand  our  Lord  as 
saying  that  the  contemporary  race  or  genera- 
tion— i.  €.,  those  then  living — should  not  die 
till  all  these  prophecies  had  been  accom- 
plished." There  is  no  right  way  but  to  give 
the  language  its  natural  sense.  "Whether  or 
not  we  recognize  a  double  reference  in  the 
discourse,  we  must  recognize  the  fact  that  it 
contemplated  a  genuine  fulfillment  of  its  pre- 
dictitms,  worthy  to  be  called  such,  to  take 
place  before  all  the  men  then  living  had 
passed  away.  This  is  required  not  only  by 
this  verse,  with  its  strong  atfirmation,  but  by 
the  structure  of  the  discourse.  Our  Lord  had 
been  most  carefully  teaching  his  hearers  to 
recognize  the  signs  of  a  coming  event.  The 
event  that  was  coming  must  therefore  have 
been  coming  so  soon  that  they  might  reasona- 
bly expect  to  see  it.  If  we  attempt  to  escape 
theadmission  that  an  early  fulfillment  was  con- 
templated by  our  Lord,  we  introduce  a  greater 
difficulty  than  we  avoid;  we  destroy  the 
naturalness  and  intelligibility  of  our  Saviour's 
speech.  He  certainly  meant  this  solemn  say- 
ing to  be  understood. 

31.  This  statement  of  time  is  confirmed  by 
one  of  the  most  solemn  and  sublime  of  all 
our  Lord's  self-assertions.  Heaven  and 
earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  Avords 
shall  not  pass  away.  This  utterance,  he 
says,  like  all  his  utterances,  is  more  to  be 
trusted  than  the  order  of  nature.  That  order 
is  changeable,  and  will  ultimatel.ybe  changed, 
but  his  words  are  of  unchangeable  validity. 


Ch.  XIIL] 


MARK. 


198 


3'2  If  IJiit  of  thill  day  and  that  hour  knowelh  uo  luan,  32  away.  But  of  that  day  or  that  hour  knowcth  no 
no,  uut  the  augels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  llie  |  one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  >on 
Sou,  but  the  i'ather.  I  ' 


Tlie  direct  reference  is  less  to  the  everlasting 
duration  of  liis  doctrine  than  to  the  absolute 
certainty  of  his  predictions.  "  What  I  say 
will  be  found  true,  more  surely  tiian  heaven 
and  earth  shall  stand.'  Heaven  and  earth 
— the  Scriptural  name  for  the  universal  frame 
ofthings.  (^tieu.  I:  I;  isa.  1: '2;  ps.  96:  11.)  Compare 
Jer.  81  :  35-37,  where  the  apjjarent  stability 
of  iiiiture  is  used  as  the  type  of  the  faithful- 
ness of  God,  and  Isa.  51:  tt;  54:  9,  10;  P.s. 
102:  24-27;  Heb.  1;  10-12,  where  his  faithful- 
ness is  said  to  outlast  the  stability  of  nature. 
The  language  of  verses  30  and  31  is  almost 
verbally  identical  in  tlie  tiiree  reports.  Note 
that  this  amazing  assertion  was  made  in  order 
to  cmiftrm  to  the  discii)les,  who  were  to  be 
left  without  further  knowledge  till  experience 
should  give  it  to  them,  the  prediction  of  verse 
30.  It  was  as  if  he  had  "confirmed  it  with  an 
oath."  (Heb.6:i-.)  Xote  also  the  moment  at 
which  this  great  word  was  spoken.  It  was  at 
the  end  of  a  ministry  in  which  he  had  been 
rejected,  and  in  the  brief  pause  that  preceded 
his  death  at  the  hands  of  murderers — one  of 
the  many  cases  in  which  his  tremendous  self- 
asserti<m  blazes  out  the  more  brightly  by 
reason  of  the  darkness  about  it.  His  esti- 
mate of  himself  was  never  changed  by  the 
experience  of  rejection.  Compare  John  12: 
37-'i0. 

32.  The  third  saying  about  the  time  is  that 
a  closer  designation  was  then  impossible. 
Within  that  generation,  the  prediction  should 
be  fulfilled,  but  at  what  day  or  hour — i.  e., 
exa<'tly  when  it  should  occur,  was  known  only 
to  the  Father.  Note  the  changes  made  by  the 
Eevisers  in  the  translation  of  the  verse.  The 
Words  neither  the  Son  were  formerly  found 
in  Mark  alone,  but  by  the  Revisers  they  have 
been  inserted  in  Matthew  on  sufficient  manu- 
script authority.  Most  naturally,  the  day  is 
the  day  of  the  event  for  which  the  disciples 
had  been  prepared  by  the  designation  of  the 
signs — the  time  concerning  which  they  had 
been  taught  to  pray  that  it  might  not  be  in 
winter,  or  on  the  Sabbath.  To  this  the  con- 
text naturally  leads.  Soine  have  seen  reason 
for  a  change  of  reference  in  the  change  of  pro- 
nouns, from  tnutn,  in  verse  30,  to  ekrines.  here : 
"  T/irsr  things  shall  soon  be  done,  but  of  that 
day  in  thefar  future, onlytheFatherknoweth." 
But  the  pronoun  ekfinns  has  already  been 
used  quite  prominenth'  in  verse  24 — "  In  those 
13 


days,  after  that  tribulation  "—where  the  refer- 
ence is  to  time  that  is  included  under  the  taufa 
of  verse  30.  Thus  there  is  no  fresh  change  of 
pronouns  at  verse  32;  ekeinus  is  used  there  as 
in  verse  24,  in  more  demonstrative  reference 
to  something  that  has  before  been  mentioned. 
That  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven 
should  be  ignorant  of  any  ''times  and  sea- 
sons" occasions  no  surprise,  btit  what  of  such 
ignorance  in  the  Son?  There  are  variou.s 
inadequate  explanations.  One  is  that  the 
Son,  as  man,  did  not  know  the  time;  while, 
as  God,  he  did  know  it.  We  are  not  justified 
in  thus  dividing  the  consciousness  of  our  Sa- 
viour; nor,  supposing  it  to  be  so  divided, 
would  he  have  been  morally  justified  in  speak- 
ing thus.  Another,  that  he  did  not  will  to 
know  it,  and  therefore  excluded  the  subject 
from  his  thoughts,  and  had  not  the  knowledge 
in  possession.  Another,  that  he  did  not  know 
it  with  the  intention  of  revealing  it.  So  the 
note  in  the  Douay  Version  :  "  lie  knoweth  it 
not  as  our  Teacher— i.  e..  He  knoweth  it  not 
so  as  to  teach  it  to  us,  as  not  being  expedient." 
Both  of  these  it  is  itiijiossible  to  reconcile  with 
the  fact  that  he  is  "the  truth."  We  must 
never  suppose  ourselves  obliged  "by  reverence 
to  accept  an  inconclusive  argument  on  the 
Lord's  side,  or  a  misinterpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture. (Job  13:  7. 8.)  What  we  have  before  us  is 
the  plain  statement  that  he  did  not  know  when 
the  predicted  event  would  occur.  The  fact 
rests  upon  his  own  authority.  As  to  the  ex- 
planation of  the  fact,  Meyers  brief  sentence 
is  sufficient:  ''Except  the  Father  excludes 
stlso  the  Son,  who  has  become  man."  The 
human  limitations  into  which  he  had  entered 
were  such  that  in  them  he  did  not  at  that  time 
know  the  time  of  the  event  that  he  predicted. 
The  fact  is  mysterious,  as  the  incarnation  is 
mysterious,  but  not  otherwise.  Surely  it 
ought  not  to  be  necessary  to  prove  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  a  man.  The  same  limita- 
tions appear  in  Luke  2:  52,  and  elsewhere, 
and  need  not  trouble  a  believer  in  his  true 
deity.  Indeed,  any  conception  of  him  is 
radically  defective  that  does  not  include  the 
recognition  of  his  true  and  genuine  humanity. 
It  is  a  very  striking  fact  that  this  one  unknown 
matter  is  a  matter  concerning  which  our  Lord 
expressly  directed  his  friends  to  pray,  (verse  is.) 
Thus  he  intimated  that  even  this  was  not  a 
matter  of  arbitrary  appointment. 


194 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


33  Take"  ye  heed,  watch  and  jiray  :  fur  ye  know  not 
when  the  time  is. 

'H  J'or  /.he  Son  uf  man  is  as  a  man  taking  a  far  jour- 
ney, who  left  his  liouse,  and  gave  authority  to  his  ser- 
vants, and  to  every  man  his  work,  and  commanded  tlie 
porttr  to  watch. 

35  Watch  ye  therefore;  for  ye  know  not  when  the 
master  of  the  house  cometh,  at  even,  or  at  niidniylit, 
or  at  the  cock-crowiiig,  or  in  the  niorninu  ; 

36  Lest  coming  suddenly,  he  find  you  sleeping.'' 

37  And  what  i  say  unto  you,  I  say  unto  all,  \Vatoh.<^ 


33  but  the   Father.     Take  ye  heed,  watch   land  pray: 

3-1  for  ye  know  not  when  the  time  is.     It  is  as  u-iitu  a 

man,  sojourning  in  another  country,  having  left  his 

house,  and  given  authority  to  his -servants,  to  each 

one  I'is  work,  commatided  also  the  porter  to  vvatcli. 

35  Watch  therelbre:  for  ye  know  not  when  the  lord  of 

the  house  Cometh,  whether  at  even,  or  at  midnight. 

30  or  at  coekcrowiug,  or  in  the  morning  ;  lest  couiing 

37  suddenly  he  find   you   sleeping.    And   what   1   say 

unto  you  1  suy  unto  all.  Watch. 


a  Matt.  24  ;  42;  25  :  13;  Luke  12  :  40 ;  21  :  34  ;  Rom.  13  :  11,  12  ;  1  Thess,  5:6;  Rev.  16  :  15 b  Matt  25  :  5 c  ver.  33,  35. 

1  Some  aucient  authorities  omit  and  pray 2  Gr.  bondsetvants. 


IV  Exhortation  to  Vigilance,  in  view 

OF  THE   Ne/  R    BUT  UNCERTAIN   DaY  OF  HiS 

Coming.     Verses  38-37. 

General  Exhortation.  33.  Take  ye  heed, 
watch  and  pray.  Thp  words  'and  pray'  iire 
of  doubtful  iiuthority.  Translate,  "  take  lieed, 
be  vigilant."  The  latter  verb  meiins  "be 
awake";  hence,  "  be  attentive."  It  does  not 
mean  "watch,"  in  the  modern  sense — i.  e., 
"look  out,"  or  "be  in  expectation."  The 
command  is,  not  to  be  in  expectancy,  but  to 
be  awake  and  ready,  not  overcome  by  the 
forgetfulness  of  spiritual  slumber:  For  ye 
know  not  when  the  time  i$. 

Parabolic  Conclusion,  Enforciiig  the  Exhor- 
totion.  Peculiar  to  Mark  34-37.  The  sen- 
tence is  grammatically  incomjjlete,  and  tiie 
Kevisers  have  completed  it  in  one  of  the  possi- 
ble ways,  probably  in  the  best.  The  picture 
is  of  a  man  setting  out  on  a  journey,  first 
entrusting  authority  to  his  servants  for  the 
time  of  his  absence,  and  assigning  to  each  his 
work;  and  then,  just  as  he  goes,  turning  and 
speaking  this  final  word  to  the  porter  to  bid 
liim  be  vigilant.  It  is  implied  that  he  bids 
liim  be  vigilant,  because  it  is  uncertain  or 
unknown  when  he  himself  will  return.  Thus, 
Jesus  compares  the  present  exhortatiim  to  the 
parting  warning  of  the  householder.  In  verse 
35,  the  imagery  of  the  parable  is  continued; 
it  is  still  the  master  of'the  house  (not  Jesus, 
directly)  that  is  spoken  of,  and  he  may  come 
in  any  one  of  the  four  watches  of  the  night. 
The  night  is  mentioned,  because  it  is  then  that 
the  porter  may  most  easily  fall  from  his  vigi- 
lance into  sleep;  and  the  lord  of  the  house 
must  not  find  him  sleeping'  at  his  post.  The 
verb  in  verses  35  and  37  is  gregoreite,  which, 
like  agrupneite,  above,  means  simply  "be 
awtike,"  or  "  be  vigilant."  The  same  word  in 
1  Cor.  16:  13;  1  Peter  5:8;  Kev.  3:  2,  3.  In 
the  four  watches  of  the  night  there  is  no  allu- 
sion to  four  periods  of  history,  or  to  times  of 
greater  or  less  spiritual  darkness.  This  was 
simply  a  vivid  picture  of  the  responsibility 


that  would  be  upon  the  disciples  after  the  de- 
parture of  their  Master.  Yet  this  counsel 
was  not  for  the  apostles  alone:  in  this  sense, 
"be  vigilant,"  it  was  plainly  for  all  Ciiris- 
tians,  in  that  age  and  in  every  other.  What 
I  say  unto  you,  I  say  unto  all,  Watch — 
"be  vigilant;  live  in  wakefulness  and  readi- 
ness." 

Here  follow  appropriately,  in  Matthew, 
chapter  25,  (1)  The  parable  of  the  Ten  Virgins, 
showing  how  it  would  be  with  the  spiritually 
wakeful  and  how  with  the  spiritutiUy  drowsy 
when  their  Master  should  call  them  to  ac- 
count ;  (2)  the  parable  of  the  Talents,  illustrat- 
ing the  trust  that  the  Lord  had  given  to  his 
servant.*  (compare  "authority  to  his  servants, 
and  to  every  man  his  work  "),  and  the  account 
that  he  would  require  of  it  from  each  of  them  ; 
and  (3)  the  judgment  scene,  in  which  the  prin- 
ciples of  final  acceptance  and  rejection  by 
Christ  the  King  are  vividly  set  forth.  From 
these  closing  verses  in  the  thirteenth  of  Mark 
(33-37),  the  Saviour  could  easily  pass  to  the 
twenty-fifth  of  Matthew.  How  bright  a  con- 
trast to  this  discourse  shines  out  in  that  which 
was  reallj'  the  last,  John  14-lG!  This  is  heavy 
with  woe  and  warning — that  is  rich  in  divine 
peace  and  inexhaustible  in  spiritual  promise. 
That  was  the  true  farewell. 

Thus  ends  the  long  activity  of  Tuesday 
(reckoning  the  evening  with  the  daj'),  which 
occupies  ninety-five  verses  in  Mark,  or  one- 
seventh  of  the  whole  book.  Such  a  record  of 
a  single  day  shows  us  how  little  we  really 
know  of  our  Lord's  activity.  Even  thi.s, 
enlarged  as  it  is  by  the  additions  that  are 
made  by  Matthew,  is  no  doubt  an  incomplete 
record;  and  hundreds  of  his  days  must  htive 
been  as  full  as  this. 

The  Question  of  Double  Keference 
in  this  discourse  has  been  reserved  to  the  end, 
because  it  is  a  question  that  ought  to  be  de- 
cided in  view  of  the  whole  discourse,  rather 
than  at  the  suggestion  of  seme  single  passage 
in   it.     The   majority   of   interpreters  find  a 


Ch.  XIIL] 


MARK. 


195 


second  meaning,  and  a  reference  to  events 
still  future — nuiuely,  to  the  visible  coming  of 
Christ  in  the  clouds  at  last  and  the  events 
attendant  upon  it.  It  is  quite  generally  held 
that  clown  to  verse  23  the  main  reference  is  to 
the  signs  of  the  ruin  of  Jerusalem,  while  a 
secondary  reference  is  found  to  events  j)re- 
monitory  of  the  future  coming  of  Christ;  and 
that  from  verse  24  the  main  reference  is  to  the 
future  coming  of  Ciirist,  while  a  secondary 
reference  is  admitted  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  Thus  the  prophetic  delineation 
of  the  signs  refers  primarily  to  the  earlier 
time,  and  of  the  event  itself  to  the  later.  So 
Alford.  The  basis  of  this  reference  to  the 
future  is  found  in  the  conviction  that  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  a  true  type  of  the 
destruction  of  the  world  at  Christ's  coming, 
on  which  account  the  signs  of  the  two  events 
may  well  be  similar,  and  the  relation  of 
Christ's  people  to  the  two  must  be  substan- 
tially the  same.  Of  this  it  may  be  said:  (1) 
A  second  reference  is  quite  in  accordance  with 
certain  characteristics  of  jirnphecj'.  There  is 
no  certainty  that  a  prophetic  discourse  will 
find  its  exhaustive  fulfilment  in  a  single 
event.  8ome  predictions  of  the  Messiah  iiad 
an  earlier  reference  and  fulfillment,  as  well 
as  a  later.  A  prediction  of  the  working-out 
of  principles  in  history  may  be  fulfilled  again 
and  again.  If  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
illustrates  the  same  principles  as  the  final 
Advent,  it  may  stand  as  a  type  of  it,  and  a 
second  reference  in  this  passage  may  be  justi- 
fied as  consistent  with  the  facts.  (2)  Whether 
this  discourse  had  a  second  reference  or  not, 
it  had  a  first,  which  was  to  reach  fulfillment 
within  that  generation.  (Ver.  so.)  The  expec- 
tation of  a  second  fulfillment  does  not  forbid 
but  encourages  the  recognition  of  the  first. 
A  second  implies  a  first.  Belief  in  a  preor- 
dained parallelism  in  the  meaningof  prophecy 
should  render  one  all  the  more  diligent  in 
searching  out  first  fulfillments.  No  interpre- 
ter needs,  therefore,  to  reject  such  an  inter- 
pretation as  has  now  been  given  because  of 
his  recoy-nizing  a  second  reference  in  the  pas- 
sage. (3)  Interpreted  in  the  light  of  current 
modern  conceptions,  the  discourse  may,  in- 
deed, appear  to  take  a  new  turn  at  verse  24, 
and  to  refer  thenceforth  to  events  still  future, 
but  not  if  interpreted  by  tb.  '  aid  of  Old  Testa- 
ment usage.  Read  in  the  light  of  prophetic 
u.tage,  our  Saviour's  languaf.e  in  verses  24-27. 
almost  quoted  from  the  prophets,  does  nf)t 
necessitate,  orsuggest,  or  even  admit,  a  change 
of  reference  at  verse  24  from  the  impending 


ruin  of  Jerusalem  to  the  future  coming  of 
Christ.  Interpreted  according  to  prophetic 
use,  the  language  unquestionably  portrays  a 
national  overthrow.  In  the  light  of  prijphctic 
use,  it  would  most  naturally  be  understood  by 
his  hearers  and  conceived  by  Christ  himself. 
To  the  present  writer  it  seems  certain,  there- 
fore, that  the  light  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
the  true  light  for  interpretation  here;  hence 
he  has  felt  that  he  had  no  authority  for  the 
admission  of  a  reference  to  events  still  future. 
If  he  had  admitted  such  a  reference,  it  could 
have  been  only  by  introducing  it  himself,  for 
in  the  discourse  he  does  not  find  it.  (4)  There 
are  grave  difficulties,  both  Scriptural  and 
moral,  ir;  regarding  the  destruction  of  Jt-ru- 
salem  as  a  true  t^'pe  of  the  ending  of  the 
Christian  age.  The  New  Testament  does  not 
predict  such  a  ruin  for  humanitj'  as  that,  with 
the  saved  a  mere  handful,  siialched  out  as  the 
"elect"  of  the  first  age  were  hurried  out  of 
the  perishing  Jerusalem.  The  typical  inter- 
pretation of  that  event  originated  in  the  sup- 
posed necessities  of  this  discourse.  (G)  The 
present  interpretation  does  not  implj-,  how- 
ever, that  the  predicted  coming  of  Christ 
occurred  and  was  completed  in  the  first 
Christian  age,  either  in  the  overthrow  of  the 
Old  Dispensation  or  in  the  inauguration  of  the 
New.  The  Scriptures  seem  to  teach  that  no 
single  event  gathers  into  itself  the  whole  of 
his  predicted  coming.  A  strongly-illumina- 
tive vford  on  the  subject  is  Christ's  own  au- 
thoritative "henceforth,"  in  Matt.  26:G4  (see 
Revision):  "Henceforth  ye  shall  see  the  Son 
of  man  sitting  on  the  right  band  of  power, 
and  coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven."  Here 
our  Saviour  indicates  that  his  coming  on  the 
clouds  is  to  be  a  process  beginning  from  that 
time,  whose  chief  significance  is  spiritual,  and 
in  which  are  included  many  events  in  the 
progress  of  his  kingdom.  The  "henceforth" 
indicates  that  the  description  is  figurative, 
and  that  all  intended  manifestations  of  iiim- 
self  to  his  people  and  the  world  are  included 
in  the  process  that  he  calls  his  coming.  The 
present  state  of  things  is  not  to  last  forever, 
and  at  its  end  there  will  be  such  a  manifesta- 
tion of  Christ  and  of  God's  completed  king- 
dom with  him  as  has  never  been  made  before 
a  Cor.  15:24-28)^  in  -wliich  the  coming  of  Christ 
will  culminate  and  find  completion.  Forbid- 
den, as  he  conceives,  by  the  discourse  itself,  to 
find  a  second  reference  reaching  on  to  events 
still  future,  the  present  writer  finds  this  view 
of  the  teaching  of  the  passage  not  only  Scrij)- 
tural,  but  abundantly  rich  and  si>tii^°actory. 


196 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


AN  ADDITIONAL  VIEW. 

BY   PROF.   J.  C.  LONG,  D.  D. 


"We  have  three  reports  of  our  Lord's  pro- 
phetic discourse  on  Mount  Olivet— Mark  13; 
Luke  21 ;  Matt.  24-25.  No  one  of  these  re- 
ports is  absolutely  complete ;  that  is,  no  one 
of  them  contains  all  our  Lord's  words  in  the 
exact  order  in  which  they  were  spoken.  But, 
a  report  not  complete  in  one  sense,  may  be 
so  in  another;  that  is,  it  may  be  complete  and 
adequate  to  the  purpose  which  the  reporter 
had  in  view.  In  this  latter  sense,  two  reports 
of  the  same  discourse  may  be  equally  true, 
although  one  of  them  may  be  much  briefer 
and  less  comprehensive  than  the  other.  If, 
for  example,  it  were  Mark's  chief  purpose  to 
report  what  our  Lord  said  about  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  we  need  not  think  his 
report  untrue  or  untrustworthy  because  he 
did  not  fully  give  what  was  said  about  the 
Lord's  second  coming,  or  the  end  of  the 
world.  And  if  Matthew,  with  a  wider  pur- 
pose, should  report  things  which  Mark  omits, 
we  need  not,  therefore,  infer  that  he  includes, 
or  is  in  the  habit  of  including,  in  a  report  of 
things  said  at  one  time,  things  said  at  another. 
When  we  have  several  reports  of  the  same 
conversation  or  discourse,  the  only  essential 
thing  is  that  they  should  not  contradict  each 
other.  In  that  case,  all  might  be  false;  all 
could  not  be  true.  The  reports  of  the  three 
Evangelists  are,  in  some  respects,  different; 
in  no  respect  contradictory.  The  case,  then, 
is  briefly  this:  1.  We  have  three  reports  of 
the  same  discourse;  2.  No  one  of  these  reports 
is  absolutely  complete;  and,  3.  All  of  them 
are  equall3'  trustworthy.  It  might  be  de- 
sirable to  consider  any  one  of  these  by 
itself;  to  treat  it  as  if  it  stood  absolutely 
alone,  and  to  forget  or  ignore  the  fact  that 
there  are  other  reports.  And  this  is  what  we 
should  do  if  it  was  our  purpose  to  ascertain 
the  value  of  each  of  the  Evangelists  as  dis- 
tinct and  separate  witnesses.  But  if  our  main 
object  was  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the 
discourse  reported,  we  should  compare  and 
combine  the  several  reports  of  it.  We  might 
get  from  each  an  impression  which  we  would 
not  get  from  the  others,  and  from  all  com- 
bined, an  impression  that  no  one  by  itself 
would  make;  and  yet,  each  separate  impres- 
sion might  be  according  to  the  truth.     There 


is  no  reason  why  an  interpreter  of  gospel 
history  should  not  compare  and  combine 
several  reports  of  the  same  thing,  in  order  to 
gain  a  broader  and  more  comprehensive  view 
of  it  than  he  could  get  from  any  one  of  the 
reports.  This  is  what  the  historian  does  when 
he  uses  the  reports  of  the  several  brigade  or 
division  commanders,  to  enable  him  to  de- 
scribe a  battle;  and  what  the  judge  does 
when  he  combines  the  testimony  of  several 
witnesses  in  order  to  get  a  complete  under- 
standing of  the  case  before  him.  It  is  our 
present  business  to  ascertain,  not  what  Mark's 
report  might  mean  to  us  if  we  had  only  his 
Gospel ;  but  what  it  actually  does  mean  when 
taken  in  connection  with  what  Matthew  and 
Luke  have  to  say  about  the  same  things. 

1.  Master,  see  Avhat  manner  of  stones, 
etc.  The  reference  to  the  stones  and  the 
buildings  is  apparently  abrupt.  Why  should 
the  disciples  call  Jesus'  attention  to  then>? 
Not  because,  as  Jews,  they  took  pride  in 
their  beauty  and  magnificence.  They  had 
none  of  the  feeling  of  the  Psalmist  when  he 
bid  strangers  walk  about  Zion,  tell  her  towers, 
mark  her  bulwarks,  and  consider  her  palaces. 
(Ps.  4s.)  They  were  evidently  thinking  of  the 
destruction  of  these  great  buildings,  which, 
in  their  massive  strength,  seemed  indestruct- 
ible. In  calling  the  Lord's  attention  to  them, 
they  would  suggest  an  explicit  declaration  of 
what  he  had  before  more  or  less  obscurely 
hinted.  Such  a  hint  was  given  just  before 
(Matt.  23:37-39) ;  and  also  earlier.  (Lukei3: 34,35.) 
The  fact  that  Luke  gives  earlier  words  that 
Matthew  records  later,  does  not  justify  us  in 
saying  that  Matthew  records  them  out  of  their 
order.  That  would  be  not  to  interpret,  but 
to  amend  or  reconstruct  his  narrative.  The 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  weighed  heavily  on 
the  Lord's  heart,  and  he  probably  spoke  of 
it,  not  once  or  twice,  but  many  times.  If  the 
disciples  sought  an  explicit  statement,  they 
immediately  got  it.     Ver.  2. 

3.  The  scene  is  changed  from  the  tem- 
ple to  the  western  slope  of  the  Mount  of 
Olives.  Luke  says  nothing  of  the  place; 
gives  no  hint  that  the  Lord  and  his  disciples 
are  not  still  in  Jerusalem,  and  mentions  no 
names  of   the   disciples    present.      He  says, 


Ch.  XIIL] 


MARK. 


197 


"they  "  asked  him.  (21:7.)  Matthew  mentions 
the  phice,  hut  no  names.  (24:3.)  Mark  gives 
botii  i)hice  and  names:  Peter  and  James  and 
Joim  and  Andrew,  the  brothers  and  partners, 
who,  three  years  before,  on  the  shores  of  the 
Galilean  lake,  had  beeome  diseiples,  and  were 
to  become  apostles,  asked  him,  etc.  We  have 
in  this  a  good  example  of  the  way  in  which 
the  three  accounts  mutually'  supplen.ent  each 
other. 

4.  The  Disciples'  Questions.  Parallel, 
Luke  21 :  7. 

The  questions  reported  by  Mark  and 
Luke  (2i:7j,  are  substantially  identical. 
They  are:  1.  When  shall  these  things  be? 
That  is.  When  shall  these  great  buildings  be 
utterly  destroyed?  and,  2.  What  shall  be 
the  sign  of  the  coming  destruction?  So  far 
as  api)ears  from  Mark  and  Luke,  no  other 
question  was  asked;  and  we  might  suppose 
that  all  that  follows  was  definitely  and  exclu- 
sively in  answer  to  these  two  questions.  But 
even  in  their  reports  there  are  intimations 
that  the  great  Prophet's  vision  extended  be- 
yond the  judgment  of  the  Jews  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  world.  (See  ver.  24-27.)  If  we 
turn  to  Matthew,  these  intimations  rise  to 
definite  statements.  As  he  reports  the  ques- 
tions asked,  they  are:  1.  When  shall  these 
things  be?  the  same  as  given  by  the  other 
writers;  and,  2.  What  shall  be  the  sign  of 
thj'  coming,  and  of  the  end  of  the  world? 
(24:3.)  The  second  question  is  peculiar  to 
Matthew.  It  refers  to  two  distinct  things — 
the  coming  of  the  Lord,  and  the  end  of  the 
world  ;  but,  as  these  two  things  are  closely  re- 
lated, they  are  considered  as  one;  and  the 
sign  of  the  one  is  the  sign  of  the  other.  The 
Revised  Version  has,  in  the  margin,  "Con- 
summation of  the  age,"  instead  of  end  of  the 
world.  The  change  in  rendering  obscures  the 
meaning.  The  same  expression  is  used  in  Matt. 
28 :  20,  where  our  Lord  saj-s :  "  Lo !  I  am  with 
you  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world,"  or 
coneummation  of  the  age.  "The  end  of  the 
world,"  conveys  a  definite  idea.  What  is 
meant  by  the  consummation  of  the  age  ?  Does 
it  mean,  as  some  have  supposed,  the  end,  or 
completion,  of  the  Jewish  Dispensation,  which 
was  to  be  marked  by  the  destruction  of  the 
temple?  In  that  case,  the  "always"  of  the 
promise  meant  about  forty  years,  and  so  far 
as  the  promise  signified,  after  the  close  of  the 


Jewish  Dispensation  the  disciples  were  to  be 
left  to  themselves.  But  the  promise  was  of 
hel])  and  guidance  during  the  whole  period  of 
Christian  labor  and  sutfering.  The  end  of  the 
world  cannot,  therefore,  mean  the  end  of  the 
Jewish  Economj'.  In  the  same  way,  the 
coming  of  the  Lord  must  mean  something 
more  than  the  coming  of  the  gospel  age— that 
long  period  in  which,  with  alternations  of  ebb 
and  flood,  the  truth  shall  go  on  increasing  in 
power  and  glory.  It  marks  the  end,  rather 
than  the  beginning,  of  the  gospel  age.  It  is 
that  time  up  to  which  the  Lord  would  be 
with  his  people;  the  reckoning  time,  when 
the  stewards  shall  give  account  of  their  stew- 
ardship. Luke  19:  22-27;  Matt.  25:  14.  But 
in  reporting  the  same  discourse,  why  does  Mat- 
thew introduce  a  question  which  the  other 
Evangelists  omit?  It  was  because  his  plan 
was  larger  and  broader  than  theirs. 

5-23.  The  Lord's  Direct  Answer. 

Our  Lord's  direct  answer  to  the  disciple's 
questions,  is  divided  into  two  parts.  In  the 
first  (ver.  613)  he  warns  them  against  mistaking 
things  that  are  not  signs  for  signs.  In  the 
second,  he  tells  them  explicitly  what  the  sign 
is,  and  what  they  must  do  when  they  see  it. 
(Ver.  I4.23)  The  disciples  might  be  led  aslraj'  by 
deceivers  (ver.e);  they  might  be  unnecessarily 
alarmed  by  political  commotions.  Wars  and 
rumors  of  wars  must  needs  arise  in  the  conflict 
of  nation  with  nation.  In  the  same  way,  from 
natural  causes,  there  would  be  earthquakes  and 
famines,  (ver.  7,  s.)  Take  heed  to  yourselves. 
(ver.9.)  In  the  general  disorder,  the  disciples 
would  have  special  trials.  Their  first  sufl'er- 
ings  would  come  directly  from  the  Jews; 
they  would  be  beaten  in  synagogues.  As 
they  grew  in  numbers  they  would  attract  the 
attention  of  the  Roman  authorities,  and  be 
brought  before  rulers  and  kings.  It  is 
not  unlikely  that  the  persecutions  which  the 
disciples  sufttred  from  the  Romans  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  were  brought  upon 
them  by  their  connection  with  the  Jews,  with 
whom  they  were  confounded.  For  a  long 
time  before  the  conflict  between  the  Jews  and 
the  Empire  actually  began,  the  Jews  were  in 
a  ferment;  and  outbreaks  were  alwaj's  immi- 
nent. Any  time  a  popular  leader  might  ex- 
cite revolt.  The  Emperor  Claudius  (41-54,^.0.), 
expelled  the  Jews  from  Rome,  because  they 
had  made  insurrection  under  the  leadership  of 


198 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


a  pretended  Messiah.  (Judsos  impulsore 
Christo  assidue  tumultuantes  Eoma  expulit. 
Suet.,  Claud.  25).  Even  in  the  Neronian  per- 
secution it  is  not  impossible  that  the  Christians 
sutfered  rather  as  Jews  than  as  Christians. 
It  is  not  conclusive  against  this  view  that 
Tacitus  expressly  states  that  the  Christians 
were  persecuted  by  Nero  as  Christians.  He 
wrote  forty  years  after  the  event;  and  in 
the  meantime,  the  Koman  government  had 
learned  to  distinguish  Christians  from  Jews, 
which  was  not  done  by  the  Emperor  Vespa- 
sian, in  whose  reign  the  temple  tax  was  ex- 
acted of  Christians,  unless  they  could  prove 
that  they  were  not  Jews.  (See  Merivale's 
"Romans  Under  the  Empire,"  vii :  122.) 
But  even  if  Christians  were  not  persecuted 
by  the  Romans  with  a  distinct  understanding 
of  their  character  and  profession,  it  is  yet 
true  that  their  sufferings  were  for  Christ's 
sake.  The  name  they  bore  (to  them  the 
synonym  of  all  that  was  pure  and  noble),  as- 
sociated by  the  Romans  with  fanaticism  and 
rebellion,  brought  upon  them  the  hatred  of 
people  and  government  alike.  Tacitus  says, 
that  they  were  detested  because  of  their 
crimes;  that  they  were  haters  of  the  human 
race,  and  deserved  the  extremest  punishment. 
"We  know  that  at  the  time  of  which  Tacitus 
writes  the  Jews  were  turbulent,  haters  of  the 
Romans,  and  hated  by  them.  As  applied  to 
the  Christians,  his  statement  was  not  true; 
they  were  not  haters  of  mankind  ;  and  the 
only  occasion  which  the  Romans  could  then 
have  for  hating  them  was  that  they  bore  the 
name  of  Christ,  which,  to  the  Romans,  had 
a  political  significance.  (See  Merivale,  vi: 
216-223. ) 

10,  The  gospel  must  first  be  pub- 
lished, etc.  The  statement  here  needs  some- 
thing to  make  it  clear.  Matt.  24:  14,  sup- 
plies that  something:  "This  gospel  of  the 
kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  all  the  world 
for  a  witness  unto  all  nations;  and  then 
Cometh  the  end."  The  must  implies  a 
necessity  of  fitness.  It  is  in  accordance  with 
the  merciful  and  holy  character  of  the  Judge 
of  all  the  earth,  that  there  should  be  sufficient 
warning  before  the  coming  of  calamity. 
All  nations  should  know  that  God  had  not 
lightly  cast  away  his  people.  The  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  was  not  something  fated.  If 
the  Jews  had  not  rejected  their  Messiah,  they 


might  have  been  saved  politically.  The  one 
thing  that  necessitated  the  destruction  of  the 
Jews  as  a  nation,  was  their  unwillingness  to 
be  incorporated  with  and  assimilated  to  the 
Empire.  This  unwillingness  was  produced 
by  their  feeling  that  faithfulness  to  God  re- 
quired them  to  obey  onlj'  their  own  God-given 
laws;  that  submission  to  the  Emperor  was 
treason  to  God.  This  feeling  would  have 
passed  away  if  they  could  have  accepted 
Jesus,  in  whom  Jew  and  Gentile  are  made 
one,  the  middle  wall  of  partition  being  broken 
down.  The  Apostle  Paul  was  a  Jew,  a  Chris- 
tian, and  a  Roman  ;  and  all  Jews  might  have 
become  the  same.  The  preaching  of  the 
gospel  gave  them  their  last  opportunitj'.  They 
rejected  it;  and  their  city  fell.  Alas,  that  they 
knew  too  late,  or  never  knew,  the  things 
that  made  for  their  peace!  "O  Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem!"  (See  the  Lord's  lamentation 
over  the  city.  Luke  19:  41-44.)  The  question 
has  been  raised  whether  the  gospel  was  actu- 
ally preached  to  all  nations.  To  insist  that  all 
nations  must  literally  mean  all  nations,  is  to 
trifle  with  language.  It  simply  means  that  the 
divine  offers  of  mercy,  the  coming  of  the  new, 
all-embracing  kingdom,  must  be  widelj'  pro- 
claimed, and  the  sentence  long  be  suspended, 
before  it  should  finally  fall.  The  preaching 
is  for  a  witness.  As  this  gospel  must  be 
preached,  there  must  be  men  to  preach  it; 
and  those  to  whom  this  duty  was  given,  must 
not  be  turned  away  from  it  by  suffering  or 
death.  It  is  to  strengthen  the  disciples  in  the 
discharge  of  their  necessary  and  dangerous 
duty  that  the  words  in  the  eleventh  verse  were 
spoken. 

12.  Brother  shall  betray  the  brother  to 
death.  All  the  tenderest,  sweetest  ties  of 
life  shall  be  to  hatred  of  Christ's  name  as 
chaff  and  stubble  to  the  consuming  flame. 

13.  The  end,  here,  is  not  the  same  as  the 
end  spoken  of  in  Matt.  24:  14.  There  it  is 
primarily,  at  least,  the  end  of  Jerusalem,  and 
of  the  temple.  Here  the  end  is  a  movable 
point,  and  is  different  to  difterent  persons :  it 
is  the  point  at  which  the  earthly  trial  ceases. 
The  salvation  promised  to  continued  faithful- 
ness is  immortal  life. 

14.  Without  the  warnings  given  in  verses  6- 
13,  the  disciples  might  have  been  uselessly  hin- 
dered in  their  work.  But  there  would  come 
a  time  when  their  work  in  Jerusalem  would 


Ch.  XIII.] 


MARK. 


199 


be  done,  and  they  must  think  alone  of  their 
own  safety.  This  time  would  be  indicated  by 
an  unmistakable  sign— the  abomination 
of  desolation  standing  where  it  ought 
not.  What  this  was,  Luke  states  plainly : 
"When  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem  encompased 
with  armies,  know  that  the  desolation  thereof 
is  nigh."  (Luke2i:20.)  Then  the  disciples  must 
flee  to  the  mountains.  The  flight  must  be 
prompt  and  unhesitating  (ver.  15,  le),  and  in 
those  awful  times,  everything  that  might 
retard  flight  was  to  be  deprecated,  (ver.  n,  is.) 
The  destruction  of  the  holy  city,  brought 
upon  it  by  the  blind,  unbelieving  stubbornness 
of  her  children,  was  to  be  the  crowning 
calamity  of  the  world's  history.  It  is  no  ex- 
aggeration to  say  that  nothing  equal  to  it  ever 
was  seen  on  the  earth.  Neither  before  nor 
since  were  so  much  wickedness  and  despera- 
tion and  human  suffering  ever  crowded  to- 
getlier  in  such  narrow  limits  of  time  and  ter- 
ritory. The  horrors  of  Paris  during  the  Reign 
of  Terror,  or  during  the  siege  of  the  German 
army  in  tiie  spring  of  1871,  are  not  to  be  com- 
pared with  what  took  place  at  Jerusalem  at 
the  time  of  its  destruction.  (See  Smith's 
"Diet,  of  the  Bible,"  pp.  1305-1308 ;  Milman's 
"Hist,  of  the  Jews,"  Bk.  xvi ;  Meri  vale's 
"Hist,  of  the  Romans,"  vi,  450-471;  or, 
better,  Joseph  us. ) 

19.  Except  the  Lord  had  shortened  those 
days.  The  wrath  of  God  towards  his  enemies 
is  tempered  by  mercy  towards  his  friends.  As 
long  as  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  lasted,  it  might 
have  lasted  longer;  and  after  the  capture  of 
the  city,  the  Roman  commander  might  have 
wrought  the  same  desolation  elsewhere.  The 
days  actually  were  shortened  by  two  things: 

1.  The  reckless  fanaticism  of  the  Jews  them- 
selves hastened  the  work  of  destruction:  the 
hotter  the  fire  the  sooner  the  fuel  is  consumed. 

2.  The  natural  mildness  of  Titus  made  him 
unwilling  to  prolong  the  wretchedness  of  the 
conquered.  The  Greek  inhabitants  of  An- 
tioch  urged  him  to  expel  the  hated  Jews  from 
that  city.  The  Roman  answered:  "The 
country  of  the  Jews  is  destroyed;  thither 
they  cannot  return  ;  it  would  be  hard  to  allow 
them  no  home  to  which  they  can  retreat. 
Leave  them  in  peace."  So  the  days  were 
shortened.  God  works  through  natural 
agencies  to  accomplish  his  purposes. 

21.  And  then  if  any  man   shall  say  to 


you,  Lo,  here  is  Christ.  The  then  may  re- 
fer to  the  time  of  the  siege,  or  to  that  imme- 
diately succeeding.  It  was  natural  that  the 
desperate,  infatuated,  overpowered,  but  not 
subdued  people  should  expect  false  Christs, 
and  that  false  Christs  should  come  forth  to 
meet  their  expectation.  The  disciples  were 
warned  not  to  be  misled  by  them.  If  we 
could  feel  that  the  warning  looked  to  the 
somewhat  distant  future,  it  might  suggest  the 
great  rising  of  the  Jews  under  Barcochab,  the 
son  of  a  star,  which  ended  in  the  complete 
and  final  overthrow  of  the  Jews  by  the  Ro- 
mans [130,  A.  D.].  (See  Milman's  "Hist.," 
Bk.  xviii.)  It  is  more  natural  to  suppose  that 
the  Lord  refers  to  a  nearer  time;  and  the 
very  decided  intimation  is,  that  his  disciples 
were  not  to  expect  him  at  or  immediatelj' 
after  the  fall  of  the  city.  In  Matt.  24  :  27,  he 
tells  them  that  his  coming  was  to  be  public 
and  notable.  If  it  was  to  take  place  imme- 
diatelj'  after  Jerusalem's  fall,  there  was  no 
occasion  for  the  warning  against  pretended 
Christs,  who  were  to  come  secretly. 

23.  Behold,  I  have  foretold  you  all 
things.  These  words  mark  the  close  of  one 
section  of  the  discourse;  and  the  finished 
answer  to  the  questions  asked,  as  reported  by 
Mark. 

24-27.  The  Coming  of  the  Lord,  etc. 
Parallels,  Matt.  24:  29-31;  Luke  21 :  25-29. 

24, 25.  These  verses  introduce  a  new  subject. 
There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  Lord, 
after  giving  plain  directions  for  the  practical 
guidance  of  his  followers,  repeats  what  he  had 
already  said  in  figurative,  or  prophetic  lan- 
guage. Indeed,  it  is  expressly  stated  that 
what  follows  is  difi'erent  from  what  went 
before.  In  those  days — that  is,  in  that  same 
general  time,  j'et  after,  or,  as  Matthew  has 
it,  immediately  after  that  tribulation, 
the  sun  shall  be  darkened,  etc.  There  is  no 
pause  in  the  development  of  God's  plans. 
One  great  event  is  immediately  succeeded  by, 
or  paves  the  way  for  others.  According  to 
the  report  of  Luke  (21:2*),  Jerusalem  was  to 
be  trodden  down  by  the  Gentiles  until  the 
times  of  the  Gentiles  be  fulfilled;  and  those 
things  which  go  to  make  up  the  times  of  the 
Gentiles  do  not  tarry.  In  the  details,  Mark's 
report  and  Matthew's  very  nearly  coincide. 
Exactly  what  is  meant  by  the  darkening  of 
the  sun,  the  paling  of  the  moon,  and  the  falling 


200 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


of  the  stars,  we  do  not  know.  (See  Dr. 
Clarke's  Notes  on  these  points.)  We  may 
notice,  however,  that  judgment  seems  to 
begin  with  the  greatest,  and  descend  to  the 
least.  First  the  sun,  then  the  moon,  and  then 
the  stars  shall  be  extinguished,  or  fall.  The 
powers  of  the  heavens  shall  be  shaken. 
We  do  not  venture  even  to  conjecture  what 
these  things  may  mean.  But  after  these 
things,  which  were  to  take  place  after  the 
tribulation  of  Jerusalem,  the  Son  of  man  was 
to  come  in  the  clouds,  with  great  power  and 
glory.  He  was  not  coming  to  begin,  but  to 
finish  up  his  Messianic  work  on  earth.  See 
ver.  27,  and  especially  Matt.  25:  31-46: 
"When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his 
glory,"  etc.  In  the  clouds.  This  recalls 
Acts  1:  9-11:  "As  they  were  looking,  he  was 
taken  up,  and  a  cloud  received  him  out  of 
their  sight."  .  .  .  "This same  Jesus.  .  .  shall 
so  come  in  like  manner  as  ye  have  seen  him 
going  into  heaven." 

37.  And  then  shall  he  send  his  angels, 
and  shall  gather  together  his  elect.  In 
the  parable  (Matt,  i.i :  24-30)  we  have  the  same 
thing  taught:   "In  the  time  of  the  harvest,  I 

will    say  to  the  reapers,"    etc "The 

harvest  is  the  end  of  the  world  (consumma- 
tion of  the  age),  and  the  reapers  are  the 
angels."  (It  is  noteworthy  that  the  phrase 
"end  of  the  world,"  or,  consummation  of  the 
ago,  is  found  only  in  Matthew's  Gospel,  and 
in  that  only  three  times  (i3:  3a;24:3,and28:20.) 
The  reader  is  invited  to  refer  to  it,  and  assure 
himself  that  it  does  not  mean  the  end  of  the 
Jewish  Economy.)  The  mention  of  the  four 
winds  and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth, 
shows  two  things:  1.  That  the  Lord's  king- 
dom had  been  universally  spread  abroad; 
and,  2.  That  the  ingathering  was  to  be  com- 
plete and  final.  How  often  has  the  thought 
of  the  glorious  coming  of  the  Lord  stirred 
the  imagination  and  strengthened  the  hearts 
of  his  people.  See  IThess.  4:  13-18;  2  Tim. 
4:  8;  2  Cor.  5:  10;  Rev.  20:  11-13.  In  the 
very  earliest  creeds,  the  disciples  were  taught 
to  profess  their  belief  in  our  Lord's  "passion 
and  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  ascension 
into  heaven  in  the  flesh,  and  his  future  mani- 
festation from  heaven  in  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  to  gather  all  things  in  one."  The 
creed  here  quoted  is  in  Irena?us'  "Against 
Heresies,"  Bk.   I.  10.     It  was  written,   prob- 


ably, towards  the  close  of  the  second  century, 
but  represents  the  belief  of  a  much  earlier 
time.  The  so-called  Apostles'  Creed  tells  us  of 
the  Son  "  who  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father,  whence  he  will  come  to  judge  the 
living  and  the  dead."  So,  too,  the  Nicene 
Creed.  The  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  to 
judge  the  world  was  one  of  the  most  general 
anticipations  of  the  early  church,  and  it  is 
hardly  possible  that  the  view  of  it  which 
early  prevailed  should  not  have  been  handed 
down  by  and  from  the  apostles  them- 
selves. 

As  verse  23  closed  the  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion in  reference  to  the  overthrow  of  the 
temple,  so  verse  27  closes  the  direct  answer  to 
the  question  about  the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
man,  and  the  end  of  the  world.  The  rela- 
tions of  the  disciples  to  the  two  questions  de- 
termined the  character  of  the  answers  to  them. 
In  the  first  case,  they  were  to  be  personally 
exposed  to  dangers,  and  needed  instructions 
which  they  could  easily  understand.  Such  the 
Master  gave  them.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  man  was  something 
more  remote.  Like  the  end  already  men- 
tioned, there  was  a  sense  in  which  it  was  a 
movable  point.  To  some  faithful  soul  there 
is,  every  hour,  a  coming  of  the  Son  of  man. 
He  comes  to  receive  his  own,  and  to  lead  them 
to  their  mansions  in  his  Father's  house.  But, 
besides,  there  is  a  coming  at  the  end  of  the 
world.  In  either  sense,  an  exact  knowledge 
of  the  time  of  the  coming  would  serve  no 
good  purpose.  Our  Lord,  therefore,  spoke  of 
it  in  the  grand  but  indefinite  language  of 
prophecy. 

28-37.  Further  Instruction.  Parallels, 
Matt.  24:  32-51 ;  Luke  21 :  29-35. 

With  verse  27,  the  whole  prophecy  closes. 
But  a  further  word  of  instruction  was 
needed.  It  is  given  (Ter.28-3i.and.'i2-37.)  Even  in 
that  case,  in  which  his  words  were  needed  for 
their  personal  guidance,  our  Lord  did  not 
speak  with  astronomical  exactness.  He  did 
not  mention  a  day  or  hour.  By  way 
of  reminding  them  of  this,  he  now  adds 
the  parable  of  the  fig  tree.  We  cannot 
tell  from  the  greenness  of  the  fig  tree,  or  the 
purple  lilac  blooms,  or  the  white  cherry  blos- 
soms, the  exact  day  of  the  month;  but  these 
things  assure  us  that  the  summer  is  near.  It 
is  this  certainty  as  to  the  indefinite,  and  un- 


Ch.  XIIL] 


MARK. 


201 


certainty  as  to  the  definite,  that  lies  at  the 
bottom  of  our  moral  trial ;  and  renders 
watchfulness  necessary.  The  things  defi- 
nitely foretold  would  certainly  happen,  and 
they  would  happen  before  that  generation 
should  pass  away ;  but  the  time  of  them 
should  come  as  comes  the  summer — by  sure 
but  unmarked  steps.  The  siege  of  Jerusa- 
lem began  in  the  spring.  Christ's  words  were 
surer  than  the  order  of  nature,   (ver.  35.) 

30.  The  all  these  things  might  include 
all  the  things  before  spol^en  of — the  destruc- 
tion of  the  temple,  the  darkening  of  the  sun, 
the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man — all.  There 
is  no  grammatical  reason  whj^  they  sliould  not. 
But  an  interpreter  who  makes  his  grammar 
his  only  guide,  must  often  be  led  astray.  Two 
classes  of  things  had  been  mentioned;  one 
that  would  concern  the  hearers  personally, 
that  would  be  attended  bj'  an  unmistakable 
sign,  and  require  specitic  action ;  the  other  was 
to  follow  the  first,  attended,  however,  by  no 
definite  mark,  and  extending  to  an  indefinite 
future.  Between  the  consummation  of  the 
first  and  of  the  second  class,  Luke  makes  "the 
time  of  the  Gentiles"  intervene.  Matthew, 
prolonging  the  discourse  through  his  twenty- 
fifth  chapter,  indicates  that  the  second  class 
of  events  was  to  be  prolonged  in  time.  It  is 
hardly  probable  that  he  and  Luke  were  led 
to  expect  the  end  of  the  world  before  the 
passing  away  of  that  generation.  The  New 
Testament  writers,  in  their  general  drift,  indi- 
cate no  such  expectation.  We  come,  there- 
fore, to  the  interpretation  of  the  words,  all 
these  things,  with  a  logical  presumption 
against  their  including  both  the  classes  of 
events  before  mentioned.  If  it  be  said  that 
in  interpreting  the  words  of  Mark  we  have 
no  right  to  go  beyond  his  record  to  ascertain 
the  meaning  he  intended  to  convey ;  the  reply 
is,  that  he  was  reporting  the  discourse  of 
another,  and  if  we  would  understand  what 
that  discourse  meant  to  him,  we  must  put  our- 
selves as  nearly  as  possible  in  his  place.  We 
must  hear  the  Lord's  words  as  he  heard  them, 
or  as  they  were  heard  by  the  one  who  re- 
ported them  to  him.  In  order  to  do  this,  we 
have  a  right  to  use  any  helps  within  our 
reach.  In  this  case,  the  general  rule  applies, 
that  where  the  grammatical  reference  is  ob- 
scure or  ambiguous,  it  must  be  determined  by 
the  context,  or  by  the  nature  of  the  case.    The 


whole  context,  and  the  nature  of  the  case, 
forbid  the  supposition  that  the  disciples  un- 
derstood the  Lord  to  teach  that  he  would 
come,  and  the  final  account  of  the  world  be 
closed  before  the  generation  then  living  should 
pass  away. 

32.  But  of  that  day  and  hour.  It  is 
important  to  observe  the  pauses  and  breaks 
in  the  discourse;  the  changes  from  one  point 
or  subject  to  another.  Verses  13,  2;^,  27,  and 
31,  mark  the  close  of  subjects;  new  subjects 
begin  with  verses  14,  24,  28,  32.  The  that 
day,  of  this  verse,  stands  somewhat  in  oj)])()- 
sition  to  the  these  things  of  verse  30.  Its 
reference  is  to  the  close  of  the  Dispensation. 
To  refer  it  to  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man, 
may  at  first  seem  arbitrary,  and  witliout  suf- 
ficient reason.  But  notice  that  that  day  early 
came  to  represent  the  time  of  the  coming  of 
the  Lord.  The  apostle  speaks  of  the  crown  of 
righteousness  which  the  righteous  judge  will 
give  him  at  that  day  ;  and  prays  for  mercy 
on  the  house  of  Onesiphorus  at  that  day. 
But,  should  we  hesitate  to  think  that  our  Lord 
uses  the  phrase  in  its  subsequent  compen- 
dious sense,  we  turn  to  Matthew's  record  for 
light.  In  24:  36,  he  says:  "But  of  that  day 
and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels 
of  heaven,  but  my  Father  only."  Tiien  fol- 
lows :  "  But  as  the  days  of  Noe  were,  so  shall 
also  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  be"!  It 
is  then,  the  end,  the  consummation  of  the 
age,  far  off  or  near,  like  some  nebulous  star, 
seen  through  mists  or  rifts  of  storm  clouds,  of 
whose  coming  even  the  Son  of  man  knows 
not  the  day.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
should  be  preceded  by  a  definite  sign — the  city 
surrounded  by  armies.  But  the  coming  of 
the  Son  of  man  should  be  sudden,  unex- 
pected.     See  Matt.  24 :  37-39. 

33.  The  discourse,  as  recorded  by  Mark, 
closes  with  an  exhortation  solemn  and  im- 
pressive ;  and  yet  so  simple  that  a  child  may 
understand  it.  (ver. 32-37.)  For  ye  know  not 
when  the  time  is.  If  the  Son  of  man  knows 
not,  liow  much  less  do  we!  The  comparisons 
of  this  conclusion  all  brmg  before  us  the  dis- 
ciples of  the  Lord  working  or  idling,  watch- 
ing or  sleeping,  liable  at  any  moment  to  be 
startled  by  his  coming.  And  our  Lord  did 
not  speak  to  those  before  him  alone.  His 
words  are :  "  What  I  say  unto  you,  I  say  unto 
all— Watch." 


202 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


CHAPTER    XIV. 


AFTER  two  days  was  the.fe.asl  of  the  passover,  and  of 
unleavened  bread:  and  the  chief  priests  and  the 
scribes  sought  how  they  might  take  him  by  craft,  and 
put  him  to  death. 

2  But  they  said,  Not  on  the  feast-(/ay,  lest  there  be 
an  uproar  of  the  people. 


1  Now  after  two  days  was  the  feast  of  the  passover  and 
the  unleavened  bread:  and  the  chief  priests  and  the 
scribes  sought  how  they  might  take  him  with  sub- 

2  tility,  and  kill  him:  for  they  said,  Not  during  the 
feast,  lest  haply  there  shall  be  a  tumult  of  the  peo- 
ple. 


1,  2.  THE  RULERS  CONSPIRE  TO  KILL 
JESUS.  Parallels,  Matt.  26  :  1-5 ;  Luke  22  :  1, 
2. — Here  Matthew's  report  is  full,  while  Mark 
and  Luke  are  compendious.  Matthew  quotes 
the  remark  as  to  the  nearness  of  the  passover 
from  Je.sus  himself,  who  also  adds  here  a  fresh 
prediction  of  his  betrayal  to  death  by  the  cross. 
This  prediction  now  becomes  definite  as  to 
time :  After  two  days.  Matthew  says,  too, 
that  these  words  were  added  at  the  end  of  the 
discourse  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  immediately 
after  the  representation  of  the  great  judgment- 
scene,  in  which  he  appears  as  "  the  king,"  dis- 
pensing eterntd  destiny.  From  that  discourse 
he  rose  to  speak  of  his  own  betrayal. 

The  feast  of  the  passover,  and  of  un- 
leavened bread.  Two  names  for  the  same 
thing,  though  slightly  differing  in  their  repre- 
sentation of  it.  The  passover  was  celebrated  on 
a  single  day,  and  the  seven  days  that  followed 
were  called  "  the  days  of  unleavened  bread," 
from  the  prohibition  of  leaven  that  continued 
through  them  (Ex.  12:  is,  19).  Of  course  it  was  the 
beginning  of  this  period,  the  passover  day  itself, 
the  fourteenth  day  of  Nisan,  that  was  now  said 
to  be  two  days  off. 

The  plotting  against  the  life  cf  Jesus  definite- 
ly began  after  the  raising  of  Lazarus.  See  John 
11  :  47-53.  There  Caiaphas  appears  in  the  plot- 
ting, in  which  were  concerned  "  the  Pharisees 
and  chief  priests ;"  here,  a  meeting  is  held  at 
his  house  (Matthew),  at  which  are  present  "  the 
cliief  priests  and  elders  of  the  people ;"  in  Mark, 
the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes.  The 
Pharisees  were  prominent  as  opposers  all 
through  the  ministry,  but  at  the  end,  when  the 
Piussion  a}>proached,  the  chief  priests  became 
the  leaders  of  opposition.  The  Pharisees  are 
mentioned  in  the  Gospels  (as  related  to  the  his- 
tory) seventy-four  times  before  the  completion 
of  the  triumphal  entry  to  Jerusalem,  and  six- 
teen times  after  it ;  and  nine  of  the  sixteen  allu- 
sions are  found  in  the  twenty-third  chapter  of 
Matthew,  the  chapter  of  "  woes."  The  chief 
priests,  on  the  contrary,  are  mentioned  twelve 
times  before  the  completion  of  the  triumphal 
entry,  five  of  these  allusions  being  after  the 
raising  of  Lazurus,  and  sixty-nine  times  after 
it.  Thus  the  chief  priests  appear  almost  exclu- 
sively in  connection  with  tlie  Passion.  The 
priestly  element  was  mainly  of  the  party  of 


the  Sadducees.  The  meeting  at  the  house  of 
Caiaphas  (Matthew)  was  either  a  formal  or  an 
informal  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin,  in  which 
body  both  sects  were  represented,  but  the  lead- 
ing influence  was  that  of  the  priests.  The  pur- 
pose was  to  find  some  way  of  taking  Jesus  by 
craft  to  kill  him — some  hidden  plot  for  secret 
murder,  with  no  open  violence. — But  they 
said.  In  the  text  of  the  revisers  verse  2  begins 
with  "  for,"  and  gives  the  reason  of  their  de- 
sire for  secrecy  :  they  could  not  work  o])enly, 
for  fear  of  a  disturbance. — Not  on  the  feast- 
day,  or  "during  the  feast" — i.  e.  not  till  after 
the  feast.  The  meaning  is  not  that  they  would 
hasten  to  finish  before  the  feast,  for  the  throng 
of  which  they  were  afraid  nutst  already  have 
filled  the  city.  It  was  too  late  to  finish  before 
the  feast ;  they  would  wait  now  till  it  was  over. 
3-11.  THE  ANOINTING  OF  JESUS  AT 
BETHANY,  AND  THE  TRAITOROUS  PRO- 
POSAL OF  JUDAS,  SUGGESTED  BY  IT. 
Parallels,  THatt.  26  :  6-16 ;  Luke  22  :  3-6 ;  John 
12  :  1-8. — But  John  is  parallel  only  in  the 
anointing,  and  Luke  only  in  the  visit  of  Judas 
to  the  iilotting  enemies.  From  this  point  we 
have,  with  many  variations  and  omissions,  a 
fourfold  harmony.  The  time  of  the  anointing 
is  fixed  by  John  at  "six  days  before  the  pass- 
over" — i.  e.  on  Saturday,  or  tlie  Jewish  Sab- 
bath, the  day  before  the  triumphal  entry  to 
Jerusalem.  The  narrative  is  introduced  by 
Matthew  and  Mark  out  of  its  order,  liaving 
been  omitted  in  its  own  jilace  and  reserved  for 
insertion  in  company  with  the  act  to  which  it 
gave  rise.  The  relations  of  this  story  furnish 
one  of  the  best  illustrations  of  undesigned  co- 
incidence and  nnitual  confirmation  in  the  Gos- 
pels, and  at  the  same  time  of  the  fragmentariness 
of  our  records.  Matthew,  Mark,  and  John  all 
tell  of  a  complaint  concerning  the  anointing 
and  a  rebuke  from  Jesus,  but  John  ak>ne  tells 
us  that  Judas  was  the  off'ended  one ;  while  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  tell  us,  as  John  does  not,  that 
he  immediately  went  to  the  meeting  of  enemies 
with  his  traitorous  propo.sal.  Yet  Matthew  and 
Mark,  by  the  act  of  putting  the  narrative  just 
here,  silently  confirm  the  testimony  of  John, 
showing  that  they  were  aware  that  the  feast  at 
Betliany  lia<l  something  to  do  with  the  betray- 
al. But  for  John  we  should  not  have  known 
what  to  make  of  their  placing  the  story  here. — 


Ch.  XIV.] 


MARK. 


203 


3  If  And"  being  in  Hetliany,  in  the  house  of  Pimon 
the  leper,  as  he  «a  at  meat,  tliere  caiue  a  woman  hav- 
ing an  alaba.ster  box  of  ointment  of  spilienard,  very 
precious  ;  and  she  brake  the  box,  and  poured  1/  on  his 
nead. 

4  And  there  were  some  that  had  indignation  within 
themselves,  and  said,  Why  was  this  waste  of  the  oint- 
ment made? 


3  And  while  he  was  in  Bethany  in  the  house  of 
Simon  the  leper,  as  he  sat  at  nieat,  there  came  a 
woman  having  'an  alabaster  cruse  of  ointment  of 
"pure  uard  very  costly ;  and  she  brake  the  cruse,  and 

4  poured  it  over  Iiis  head.  But  tliere  were  some  that 
had  indignation  among  themselves,  sui/imj,  To  what 
purpose  hath  this  waste  of  the  ointment  been  made? 


a  Matt.  26  :  6 ;  Luke  7  :  37  ;  John  12  : 1,  etc. 1  Or,  afituk Z  Or,  liquid  nard 


It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  this  is  not 
the  same  anointing  as  tliat  of  Luke  7  :  37-50; 
or  that  thi.s  Mary  is  not  Mary  Magdalene;  or 
that  tliere  is  no  evidence  to  connect  Mary  Mag- 
dalene with  either  of  tlie  anointings. 

3.  Being  in  Bethany — where  he  had  just 
arrived  on  the  last  journey  toward  Jerusalem — 
in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper,  who  is 
entirely  unknown.  From  .lolm  we  would  in- 
fer that  the  family  of  Lazarus  made  the  supper, 
and  heiK-e  it  has  been  conjectured  that  Simon 
nuist  have  been  in  some  way  connected  with 
that  family  ;  but  tlie  fitcts  are  beyond  our  reach. 
It  is  a  reasonable  conjecture  that  Simon  had 
been  healed  of  lei)rosy  by  Jesus. — There  came 
a  woman,  who  wa.s  Mary,  the  sister  of  Lazarus. 
So  John,  who  also  informs  us  tliat  Martha  was 
serving  and  Luzarus  was  a  fellow-guest  at  the 
table  with  Jesus.  The  traits  of  character  that 
are  thus  illustrated  are  identical  witli  those  that 
appear  in  Luke  10 :  38-42.  The  various  glimpses 
that  are  given  us  of  this  family  convince  us  of 
their  truth  by  their  perfec-t  consistency. — Only 
by  John  is  the  name  of  the  woman  given,  but 
surely  not  because  Matthew  and  ^hlrk  did  not 
know  it;  the  very  record  (verse 9)  proves  that 
they  knew.  Such  a  promise  would  not  be  re- 
corded concerning  an  unknown  person.  The 
synoptists  plainly  liad  some  reason  for  sup- 
pressing, as  tliey  did,  all  dctinite  allusions  to 
the  family  at  Bethany.  They  have  no  mention 
of  tlie  raising  of  Lazarus  ;  and  Mary  is  here  sim- 
ply a  woman,  and  there  is  no  allusion  to  Laz- 
arus or  Martha.  When  Luke  alludes  to  the 
houseliold  (lu:  38-42)  there  is  nothing  to  indicate 
where  tliey  lived  or  that  they  liad  any  closer 
connection  witli  our  Lord.  Some  reason,  which 
was  reiiKJved  before  John  wrote,  kept  the  synop- 
tists silent. — Having  an  alabaster  box — or 
"cruse"  or  "va.se" — of  ointment  of  spike- 
nard, or  rather  "of  nard."  Tlie  word  spike- 
nard, though  it  was  originally  s])icn  nardi, 
"liead"  or  "tuft  of  nard,"  has  obtained  a  dif- 
ferent meaning,  and  is  not  the  best  word  here. 
Nard  was  an  Indian  plant,  from  the  root  and 
leaves  of  which  was  expressed  an  oil  wliich 
was  among  the  most  iiiglily  prizeil  of  unguents. 
The  translation  in  the  Revised  New  Testament 
omits  tiie  Greek  word  pistikes,  except  as  it  seems 


to  be  represented,  by  intention,  in  the  first  syl- 
lable of  "  spikenard."  The  word  is  a  doubtful 
one,  as  the  revi-sers  indicate  in  their  margin, 
but  probably  it  means  "pure"  or  "unadulter- 
ated." Adulteration  of  such  unguents  was  fre- 
quent. The  "  pure  nard  "  of  the  American  re- 
visers is  doubtless  right. — It  wiis  very  pre- 
cious, a  fact  that  determines  the  standing  of 
the  family  as  among  the  comparatively  rich. 
Not  improbably,  this  one  vase  too  nuich  may 
have  been  purchased  for  the  unointingof  Lazarus 
for  the  grave.— She  brake  the  bo\.  Broke  the 
neck  of  the  vase,  to  pour  out  all  that  it  contained. 
The  mention  of  the  act  is  peculiar  to  Mark. — 
Poured  it  on  his  head.  So  Matthew.  John, 
"  She  anointed  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  wipetl  his 
feet  with  her  hair."  The  statements  diifer ;  John 
plainly  intended  to  tell  of  an  anointing  of  the 
feet,  atid  Matthew  and  Mark  of  the  licad ;  but 
tliere  is  no  retison  to  reject  the  idea  that  both 
are  correct,  and  that  Mary  anointed  both  head 
and  feet.  From  Luke  7  :  4(5  it  is  plain  that 
anointing  of  the  head  of  a  guest  was  common 
and  anointing  of  the  feet  was  unusual,  a  rare 
and  special  tribute.  It  is  not  unlikely  that 
Mary  had  heard  tlie  story  of  the  earlier  anoint- 
ing in  Simon's  house  in  Galilee,  and  received 
from  it  the  suggestion  of  her  own  act. 

Her  motive,  so  far  as  it  was  connecte<l  with 
the  raising  of  her  brother  from  death,  is  ailmi- 
rably  expressed  by  Tennyson  {In  Memorkim, 
xxxii.) : 

"Her  eyes  are  homes  of  silent  prayer, 
Nor  other  thought  her  mind  admits 
But,  '  He  was  dead,  and  there  he  sits, 
And  he  that  brought  him  back  is  there.' 

"Then  one  deep  love  doth  supersede 
All  other,  when  her  ardent  gaze 
Roves  from  the  living  brother's  face 
And  rests  upon  the  Life  indeed. 

"All  subtle  thought,  all  curious  fears, 
Borne  down  liy  gladness  so  complete, 
.•^he  bows,  she  bathes  the  Saviour's  feet 
With  costly  spikenard  and  with  tears." 

4,  5.  The  complaint  is  that  of  "the  disci- 
ples" in  Matthew;  of  some  in  ^hlrk ;  of  "Ju- 
das Iscariot,  one  of  his  di.sciples,'  in  John; 
probably,  in  fact,  of  Judius,  scattering  his  ob- 
jections among  the  rc>st.     One  evil-whisperer 


204 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


5  For  it  might  have  been  sold  for  more  than  three 
hundred  pence,  and  have  been  given  to  the  poor.  And 
they  niiirnuired  against  lier 

6  And  Jesus  said,  l,et  tier  alone;  why  trouble  ye 
her?  she  hatli  wrought  a  good  work  on  nie. 

7  For"  ye  ha\e  the  poor  with  you  always,  and  when- 
soever ye  will  ye  may  do  them  good:  but  me  ye  have 
not  always. 

i<  ^he  lialh  done  what  she  could:  she  is  come  afore- 
band  to  anoint  my  body  to  the  burying. 


5  For  this  ointment  might  have  been  sold  for  above 

three   hundred   'shillings,  and  giveu   to   the   i)Oor. 

6 And  they  murmured  against  her.     l^ut  Jesus  >aid, 

-  Let    her  alone;    why   trouble    ye    her?    she    hath 

7  wrought  a  good  work  on  me.     For  ye  have  the  jioor 
always  with  you,  and  whensoever  ye  will  ye  can  do 

8  them  good :  but  lue  ye  have  not  always,     ^-he  hath 
done  what  she  couid :  she  hath  anointed  my  body 


a  Deut.  15  :  11.- 


-I  See  margiaal  note  on  obap.  vi.  37. 


may  poison  many  minds.  The  complaint  was 
extremely  plausible  :  this  did  indeed  seem  like 
waste;  the  poor  certainly  ai)i)eared  to  have  a 
higher  claim.  The  estimate  of  the  value  of  the 
ointment,  more  than  three  hundred  pence, 
or  denarii,  is  a  rough  one,  ill-naUuvd,  antl  not 
unlikely  exaggerated,  though  the  testinionj'  of 
tne  word  very  precious  remains.  Three  hun- 
dred denarii  was  a  sum  equal  to  about  forty-five 
dollars,  but  2)racticall3',  in  that  age,  much  great- 
er than  that.  One  denarius  appears  in  Matt. 
20  :  2  as  a  day's  wages.  The  objection  of  Judas 
is  exjaressly  attributed  by  John  to  a  dishonest 
motive,  pleading  the  cause  of  the  jioor  merely 
asa  pretence. — And  they  murmured  against 
her,  or  reproved  her  harshly.  Peculiar  to  Mark. 
This  seems  to  be  the  work  of  more  than  Judas  : 
too  many  of  the  disciples  fell  in  with  his  plaus- 
ible but  lieartless  cavil.  This  was  a  mistake  of 
theirs  sinular  to  that  about  the  coming  of  the 
little  children  to  Jesus  (Mark  lo:  is),  a  worldly  di- 
vergence from  the  spirit  of  the  IShister.  Not  yet 
were  they  able  to  see  beauty  in  pure  spiritual 
excellence. 

6-9.  The  answer  of  Jesus — an  answer  for 
which  all  ages  do  well  to  be  thankful.  In  re- 
ply to  the  worldly  comjjlaint,  it  is  the  vindi- 
cation of  tlie  unworldly  heart.  First  he  pro- 
tects the  woman.  Let  her  alone  ;  why  trou- 
ble ye  her? — Then  he  praises  the  act,  pay- 
ing tribute  to  its  inward  quality.  She  hath 
wrought  a  good  work  on  me  (kaluii  eryun), 
an  act  of  moral  beauty.  The  spectators  had 
estimated  it  outwardly,  after  the  manner  of 
men,  with  reference  merely  to  its  practical 
effect  in  visible  usefulness ;  he  shows  it  to 
them  as  an  act  of  spiritual  quality,  admirable 
in  itself,  lovely,  and  worthy  of  a  tender  rever- 
ence. It  was  all  this,  because  it  was  a  pure  act 
of  love  to  him.  In  his  sight  a  pure  love  is  pre- 
cious for  itself. — This  high  praise  he  next  vin- 
dicates fvcr.se 7)  in  vicw  of  the  timeliness  of  the 
act.  Kindness  to  the  poor,  he  says,  is  always 
possible,  for  they  are  ever  at  liand ;  but  any- 
thing that  is  to  be  done  to  him  in  person  as  an 
act  of  ardent  love  must  be  done  quickly. — Yet 
how  tender  a  way  is  this  of  mentioning  the  in- 


evitable and  impending  loss !  Me  ye  have 
not  always.  See  how  high  an  honor  he 
thus  puts  upon  love  as  love:  he  compares  it 
with  usefulness,  and,  at  least  for  certain  pur- 
poses, calls  it  the  higher  of  the  two.  Helpful- 
ness to  the  needy  is  no  optional  work :  it  is 
one  of  the  duties,  and  not  less  one  of  the  priv- 
ileges, in  his  kingdom.  See  how  he  identifies 
his  needy  brethren  with  himself  in  Matt.  25  : 
40.  Yet  even  this  he  would  have  to  be  set 
aside  for  the  time,  when  love  finds  such  an 
opportunity  to  lavish  itself  on  liim.  Tliis  is 
no  selfishness  of  his,  no  love  of  anointings,  no 
greediness  of  the  heart  for  tributes  of  affection  ; 
this  is  recognition  of  the  supreme  worth  of 
holy  love.  "  Love  did  well,"  he  says,  "  to  seize 
the  moment  and  do  its  utmost  before  I  was 
away,  even  though  the  poor  must  wait."  He 
was  right:  love  did  well,  not  only  as  bringing 
forth  a  deed  of  moral  beauty,  but  even  for  the 
poor.  Mary  did  infinitely  more  for  the  poor 
by  the  act  of  that  day  than  she  could  have 
done  by  giving  them  the  value  of  the  oint- 
ment. That  would  have  relieved  only  a  few 
of  them,  and  only  for  a  little  while ;  but  the 
deed  of  love  has  been  a  blessing  to  the  poor  of 
all  later  ages.  The  selling  of  the  alabaster  box 
for  charity's  sake  would  soon  have  been  for- 
gotten, but  the  breaking  of  it  for  love's  sake 
has  inspired  ten  thousand  deeds  of  unsel- 
fishness. 

His  high  judgment  of  the  act  he  further  vin- 
dicates (verse  8)  by  sliowiug  it  as  an  act  of  deep 
loving  insight.  He  touches  here  upon  a  mo- 
tive beyond  that  which  Tennyson  has  recog- 
nized. She  hath  done  what  she  could. 
It  was  the  utmost  that  she  had  means  of  doing 
for  a  purpose  that  she  held  very  dear — namely, 
she  is  come  aforehand  to  anoint  my 
body  to  the  burying.  Matthew,  "in  that 
she  liath  poured  this  ointment  on  my  body, 
she  did  it  for  burial."  Such  words  would 
scarcely  have  been  spoken  if  they  had  not 
represented  the  i)urpose  that  was  present  in 
Mary's  mind.  The  time  was  close  upon  his 
entrance  to  Jeru.salem,  when  his  disciples  ex- 
pected him  to  triumph.      Mary,  with  deeper 


Ch.  XIV.] 


MARK. 


205 


9  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Wheresoever  this  gospel 
shall  be  preached  throughout  the  whole  world,  </i(.v  also 
that  she  hath  done  shall  be  spoken  of  for  a  memorial 
of  her. 

lu  ','  And"  Judas  Iscariot,  one  of  the  twelve,  went 
unto  the  chief  priests  to  betray*  him  unto  them. 

11  And  when  they  heard  U,  they  were  glad,  and 
promised  to  give  him'  money.  And  he  sought  how  he 
might  conveniently  betray  him. 


9  aforehand  for  the  burying.  And  verily  I  say  unto 
you,  Wheresoever  the  gospel  shall  be  preached 
throughout  the  whole  world,  that  also  which  this 
woman  hath  done  shall  be  spoken  of  for  a  memorial 
of  her. 

10  And  Judas  Iscariot,  'he  that  was  one  of  the  twelve, 
went   away  unto   the  chief  priests,  that   he  might 

11  deliver  him  unto  them.  And  they,  when  they 
heard  it,  were  glad,  and  promised  to  give  hiui 
nu)ney.  And  he  sought  how  he  might  conveniently 
deliver  him  unto  Ikem. 


a  Matt.  26  :  14,  etc. ;  Luke  22  :  3,  etc b  John  13:2. 


Kings  21 :  20;  ProT.  1 :  10-16.- 


-1  Or.  the  one  of  the  twelve. 


insight,  understood  him  at  that  time,  perhaps, 
where  no  one  else  un(lei"stood  hiiii,  and  felt 
that  instead  of  triiimj)!!  it  must  be  death.  She 
liad  lovingly  looked  forward  to  what  nuist  fol- 
low death :  it  would  be  death  at  the  hands  of 
enemies,  and  probably  there  would  be  no  op- 
portunity for  her  to  do  any  service  of  alfection 
for  his  body.  But  he  was  with  her  now,  and 
while  her  thoughts  were  busy  the  impulse 
seized  her  to  pour  out  upon  his  body  this  pre- 
cious ointment  now,  anointing  him  beforehand 
for  the  burial.  This  was  an  act  of  fellowship 
with  his  sufferings.  How  contrary  to  tlie  sjiirit 
of  Peter  in  Matt.  16  :  22 :  "  Be  it  far  from  thee. 
Lord"!  but  like  the  words  of  Peter  in  Luke 
22  :  33  :  "  I  am  ready  to  go  witli  thee  both  into 
prison  and  to  death." — What  a  tril)ute  from 
Jesus!  She  hath  done  what  she  could. 
Do  not  sjjoil  it  by  metaphysical  or  theological 
analysis ;  it  is  utmost  Love  recognizing  love's 
utmo.st. 

It  is  an  e.x'ceptional  act,  and  it  gives  to  its 
doer  an  excei)tional  place  (verse  9).  Note  the 
solemn  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  The  woman 
is  elevated  to  a  jilacc  in  the  Gospel  story — not 
only  her  deed,  but  herself  It  shall  be  told 
everywhere  for  a  memorial  of  her — i.  e.  as 
a  means  of  keci)ing  her  in  remembrance.  No 
one  else  ever  received  from  the  Lord  such  a 
promise.  No  other  act  in  his  life  is  recorded 
to  have  so  pleased  him,  for  no  other  appears  to 
have  been  so  purely  and  profoundly  an  act  of 
unselfish,  holy,  sympathetic  love.  After  such 
a  record  of  his  estimate  of  love,  we  can  under- 
stand the  place  he  gives  to  love  in  John  13  :  35 
as  the  badge  of  discipleship. — Notice  the  as- 
sumption that  the  guspel  is  to  be  preached 
throughout  the  whole  Avorld.  The  i)hrase 
(<•/>  hohni  (on  fcosmoii)  is  broader  than  the  lan- 
guage of  Matt.  24:  14— literally,  "all  the  in- 
liabited  world;"  or  of  ^fark  13:10,  "among 
all  the  nations."  That  the  gospel  is  to  be  thus 
jireached  he  does  not  state,  but  a.ssnmes ;  it  is 
the  woman's  part  that  needs  to  be  mentioned. 
Compare  Luke  10  :  42 :  "  Mary  hath  chosen  the 
g'>ol  part,  which  shall  not  be  taken  away  from 
her."     By  this  unexpected  promise  of  world- 


wide and  age-long  fame  Mary  may  well  have 
been  humbled,  but  the  disciples  who  had  found 
fault  humiliated. 

10,  11.  The  record  now  returns  to  the  time 
of  verses  1,  2.  The  conspirators  are  in  session, 
and  are  unexpectedly  joined  by  one  of  the  com- 
pany of  Jesus.  Judas  is  specified  as  "one  of 
the  twelve  "  in  Matthew  ;  in  Mark,  literalh^  as 
"  he  that  was  cme  of  the  twelve ;"  Luke  is  still 
more  emphatic :  "  being  of  the  number  of  the 
twelve."  His  original  honor  is  the  special 
badge  of  his  infamy.  Angered  by  the  rebuke 
at  Bethany,  and  taking  this  as  the  climax  of  his 
reasons  for  such  a  step,  he  comes  witli  his 
proposal  to  place  Jesus  in  their  hands.  Note 
that  the  Greek  word  (paradidOnu)  means  "to 
deliver  up,"  and  does  not  in  itself  contain  the 
idea  of  treachery  that  belongs  to  our  word  "  be- 
tray " — a  fact  which  thereviscrs  have  frequently, 
but  not  always,  observed. — At  the  coming  of 
Judas  the  conspirators,  surprised  and  doli'^hted, 
change  their  plan,  cut  short  their  delay,  and 
close  the  bargain  for  the  delivery  of  Jesus  at 
any  time,  tumult  or  no  tumult:  for  such  an 
opportunity  it  is  worth  while  to  run  some  risks. 
In  Matthew  the  proposal  of  pay  comes  from  Ju- 
das :  "  What  are  ye  willing  to  give  me.  and  I  will 
deliver  him  up  to  you  ?"  There  also  the  price  is 
mentioned,  thirty  pieces  of  silver — (.  r.  shekels — 
about  fifteen  dollars  intrinsically,  but  relatively 
much  more,  perhaps  ten  times  as  much.  But 
it  was  not  the  motiey  that  indticed  Judas  to  the 
act :  he  was  no  such  shallow  man.  Deeper 
motives — of  dissatisfaction  with  Jesus  —  must 
long  have  been  at  work.  From  that  time  he 
w.as  watching  his  opportunity,  which  soon 
came. 

12-lG.  THE  PREPARATION  FOR  THE 
PASSOVER.  Pfiraflrh,  Matt.  20  :  17-19:  Luke 
22  :  7-13. — The  time,  unquestionably,  is  Thurs- 
day, before  sunset.  The  pa.'^sover  lamb  was  to 
be  killed  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  Nisan,  and 
to  be  eaten  in  the  evening  that  followed  that 
day;  this  evening  was  counte<l.  however,  in 
the  .lewish  reckoning,  as  part  f)f  the  next  day. 
All  the  synoptists  positively  assert  that  this 
Thursday  was  the  day  for  killing  the  passover. 


206 


MAKK. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


12  H  And  the  first  day  of"  unleavened  bread,  when 
they  killed  the  passover,  his  disciples  said  unto  him, 
Where  wilt  thou  that  we  go  and  preijare,  that  thou 
may  est  eat  the  passover? 

14  And  he  seudeth  forth  two  of  his  disciples,  and 
saith  unto  ihetu,  to"  ye  into  the  city,  and  there  sliall 
meet  you  a  man  bearing  a  pitcher  of  water:  lollow 
him. 

14  And  wheresoever  he  shall  go  in,  say  ye  to  the 
good  man  of  the  house,  The  Master'^  saith.  Where  is 
the  guest-chamber,  where  I  shall  eat"^  the  passover 
with  my  disciples/ 

lo  And  he  will  shew  you  a  large  upper  room  fur- 
nished mill  prepared:  there  make  ready  for  us. 

lij  And  his  disciples  went  forth,  and  came  into  the 
city,  and  lound'' as  lie  had  said  unto  them:  and  they 
made  ready  the  passover. 


12  And  on  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread,  when 
they  sacrificed  the  passover,  his  disciples  say  unto 
him,  AVhere  wilt  thou  that  we  go  and  make  ready 

13  that  thou  niayest  eat  the  passover?  And  he  sendeth 
two  of  his  disciples,  and  saith  unto  them,  tjo  into 
the  city,  and  there  shall  meet  you  a  man  bearing 

14a  pitcher  of  water:  follow  him  ;  and  wheresoever  he 
shall  enter  in,  say  to  the  goodman  of  the  house, 
'Ihe  'Master  saith.  Where  is  my  guest-chamber, 
where  I  shall  eat  the  passover  with  my  disciples .' 

loAnd  he  will  himselt  shew  you  a  large  upper  room 
furnished  a»</ ready  :  and  there  make  ready  for  us. 

16  And  the  disciples  went  forth,  and  came  into  the 
city,  and  found  as  he  had  said  unto  them:  and  they 
made  ready  the  passover. 


a  Ex.  12:  8,  etc i  ch.  11:2,  3  ;  Heb.  4  :  13 c  JobD  11:28;  13:13 d  Rev.  3:20 e  John  16:  4.- 


-1  Or,  Teacher 


From  early  Christian  times  John  has  been  sup- 
posed to  differ  from  the  synoptists  liere  by  rep- 
resenting that  at  the  time  of  our  Lord's  trial — i.  e. 
in  the  night  between  Thursday  and  Friday — 
tlie  pa.ssover  feast  itself  was  still  to  be  eaten,  in- 
dicating thus  that  the  true  passover  day,  the  four- 
teenth of  Nisan,  was  Friday,  and  not  Thursday. 
Accordingly,  some  have  maintained  that  Jesus 
did  not  really  eat  the  passover  at  all,  but,  as  a 
substitute  for  it,  partook  of  a  similar  meal  one 
day  in  advance.  This  theory  is  favored  by  the 
desire  to  find  our  Saviour  crucified  (jii  the  very 
passover  day,  and  thus  accurately  fullilling  the 
ancient  type.  But  such  a  divergence  among 
the  evangelists  upon  a  simjile  matter  of  fact 
conceniing  which  they  cannot  have  been  igno- 
rant would  be  very  strange,  even  apart  from  all 
questions  of  inspiration  ;  for  it  could  not  pos- 
sibly be  unconscious  on  the  part  of  John,  who 
wrote  last,  yet  his  manner  is  totally  unconscious 
of  any  purpose  to  correct  the  previous  under- 
standing on  the  subject.  A  more  thorough  ex- 
amination of  John's  language  shows,  however, 
that  the  differences  are  by  no  means  irrecon- 
cilable. John  does  not  assert  as  positively  as 
at  first  appears  that  the  passover  day  was  Fri- 
day. (See  a  good  and  satisfactory  discussion 
of  the  subject  in  Andrews's  Life  of  our  Lord.) 
The  result  is  that  no  serious  difficulty  remains 
in  accepting  the  positive  statements  of  the 
synoptists  that  Jesus  really  partook  of  the  pass- 
over  at  the  proper  time. 

12.  The  first  day  of  unleavened  bread — 
i.  e.  of  the  passover  celebration.  Leavened 
bread  was  to  be  put  away  from  the  houses  for 
seven  days,  from  the  fourteenth  of  Nisan  at 
evening  to  thetwenty-firstatevening  (ex.  12: 1&-20). 
— When  they  killed  —  impereonal;  when  it 
was  customary  to  kill — the  passover. — Mat- 
thew and  Mark  record,  while  Luke  omits,  the 
inquiry  of  the  disciples  as  to  the  place  of  observ- 
ance. Notice  how  they  assumed  that  instead 
of  scattering  to  family  circles  of  their  own  they 


were  to  keep  the  feast  as  a  household  with  Je- 
sus as  the  head.  But  the  household  had  no 
home  (Luke 9: 58),  and  they  did  not  know  where 
to  spread  the  table. — As  to  the  necessary  prep- 
aration, (1)  originally  the  head  of  the  house- 
hold killed  the  Iamb,  which  had  been  selected 
and  kept  four  days  beforehand ;  but  in  later 
times  the  lamb  was  slain  by  the  priests  in  the 
temple,  some  mcmberof  the  household  present- 
ing it  there  and  assisting.  This  was  a  part  of 
the  service  proposed  by  the  disciples  on  this 
occasion — to  buy  the  lamb  and  attend  to  the 
sacrificing.  (2)  It  was  necessary  to  attend  to 
the  roasting  of  the  lamb,  to  provide  the  bread, 
wine,  bitter  lierbs,  and  sweet  fruits,  and  to 
spread  the  table ;  in  this  case,  also,  to  provide  a 
place. 

13-16.  He  sendeth  forth  two  of  his 
disciples,  who  were  Peter  and  John  (Luke). 
Jesus  himself  still  remained  in  Bethany.  There 
is  something  omitted  from  this  story,  but  what 
is  it?  Is  it  a  previous  understanding  with  some 
disciple  who  had  a  house  in  the  city,  perhaps  a 
secret  disciple  like  Joseph  of  Arimathtea?  or  is 
it  a  superhuman  knowledge  and  control  of  the 
movements  of  unseen  men  ?  The  message  is, 
in  Matthew,  "The  Master"  (Teacher)  "saith, 
My  time  is  at  hand ;  I  keep  the  passover  at  thy 
house  with  my  disciples"  —  a  message  which 
seems  to  imply  that  the  householder  knew 
Jesus  as  "  the  Teacher,"  and  would  know  some- 
thing of  what  he  meant  by  "  my  time  is  at 
hand."  —  Where  is  the  (in  the  best  text 
"my")  guest-chamber?  which  naturally  in- 
dicates either  that  he  had  arranged  for  the 
room  or  that  he  had  used  it  for  some  purpose 
before.  The  man  would  seem,  therefore,  to 
have  been  more  or  less  distinctly  a  disciple. 
The  question  about  the  guest-chamber  does 
not  ask  for  information :  it  is  equivalent  to 
"  Show  my  messengers  the  place."  It  may 
therefore  have  been  agreed  that  when  Jesus  was 
ready  he  would  send  some  one  to  claim  the 


Ch.  XIV.] 


MARK. 


207 


17  And  in  the  evening  he  conieth  with  the  twelve. 

18  And  as  they  sat  and  did  eat,  Jesus  said,  Verily  I 
say  unto  you,  One  of  you  which  eateth"  with  me  shall 
betray  nie. 

19  And  they  began  to  be  sorrowful,  and  to  say  unto 
him  one  by  one,  /»■  it  I  ?  and  another  said,  Is  it  I? 


17  And  when   it  was  evening  he  eonieth  with  the 

18  twelve.    And  as  they  'sat  and  were  eating,  Jesus 
said,  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  One  of  you  shall  betray 

19  me,  evni  he  that  eateth  with  me.     They  began  to  be 
sorrowful,  and  to  say  unto  him  one  by  one.  Is  it  I? 


aPs.  41  :  9;  55  :  13.  14.- 


-1  Gr.  reclintd. 


gu&st-clianiberand  prepare  the  passover,  and  the 
meeting  with  the  servant  bearing  the  pitcher 
may  have  been  a  chusen  signal.  On  the  other 
liand,  we  may  recognize  this  as  another  instance 
(hke  John  11  :  14j  of  tlie  superhuman  knowl- 
edge tliat  Jesus  possessed  ;  but  with  it  we  must 
recognize  also  a  superliuman  control  of  the 
movements  of  absent  persons — something  of 
which  we  liave  no  other  traces  in  his  life  ex- 
cept in  the  cases  of  his  healing  from  a  distance. 
There  is  no  objection  to  recognizing  both,  but  it  is 
a  good  general  principle  not  to  suppose  miracle 
where  the  ordinary  course  of  life  sufficiently 
explains  the  facts.  In  this  case  we  may  sup- 
pose a  miracle,  but  it  seems  scarcely  neces- 
sary. The  pitcher-bearer  was  to  be  merely  a 
silent  guide:  all  the  conversation  was  to  be 
with  the  good  man  —  i.  e.  ma.ster  —  of  the 
house. — He,  the  master  of  the  house,  will 
show  you  a  large  upper  room,  furnished 
— /.  ('.  sup))licd  with  table  and  couches — and 
prepared  :  there  make  ready  for  us.  Mat- 
thew omits  the  sign  by  which  they  were  to  find 
the  house,  but  he  leaves  room  for  it ;  and  the 
narratives  need  no  reconciliation. 

17-26.  THE  EATING  OF  THE  PASS- 
OVER, AND  THE  INSTITUTION  OF  THE 
LORD'S  SUPPER.  Parallels,  Matt.  26  :  20-30 ; 
Luke  22  :  14-39  ;  John  13-17.— Matthew  and 
Mark  are  closely  parallel.  Luke  differs  from 
them  somewhat  in  arrangement,  relates  what 
was  said  during  the  eating  of  the  i)assover,  and 
records  our  Lord's  tender  and  searching  reproof 
of  ambitious  strife  at  the  table.  John  13-17  is 
placed  here  because  it  relates  to  the  same 
hour,  though  it  contains  but  very  little  that 
is  strictly  parallel  to  the  record  of  the  synop- 
tists.  But  John  confirms  the  order  of  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  where  it  differs  from  that  of 
Luke ;  and  their  arrangement  is  generally  fol- 
lowed. 

17.  The  Paschal  lamb  was  slain  between  the 
hour  of  prayer  (three  o'clock)  and  sunset. 
About  sunset,  which  would  be  at  that  season 
at  a  little  after  six,  Jesus  may  have  come  into 
the  city.  With  this  sunset  began,  according  to 
the  Jewish  reckoning,  the  day  of  his  death. 
The  twelve  were  with  him ;  Luke,  "  the 
apostles."  There  was  a  somewhat  larger  circle 
of  near  followers,  but  there  is  no  indication 


that  any  of  these  were  now  present.  First 
came  the  passover  itself,  one  "  cup  "  of  which 
is  mentioned  by  Luke  (2'i:i7);  meanwhile,  or 
perhaps  earlier,  the  rebuke  of  ambition,  which 
probably  manifested  itself  in  connection  with 
taking  their  places  at  the  table.  It  is  cjuite  pos- 
sible that  the  disciples  were  even  expecting  this 
passover  season  to  witness  the  display  of  their 
Master's  Messianic  power ;  in  which  case,  they 
would  think,  their  relative  nearness  to  his  per- 
son would  immediately  be  important.  After  the 
rebuke  came  the  washing  of  the  disciples'  feet 
by  their  Master — matchle.ss  enforcement  of  the 
law  of  love  and  humility,  which  ought  to  have 
decided  the  character  of  his  church  for  all  time. 
After  the  rebuke,  the  passover  still  unfinished, 
came  the  pointing  out  and  withdrawal  of  the 
traitor.  If  we  had  only  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  we 
sliould  suppose  that  Judas  remained  till  after 
the  establishment  of  the  Supi^er.  But  Luke 
probably  puts  the  record  of  the  Supjier  out  of 
its  place,  because  he  has  just  mentioned  the 
"  cup  "  of  the  Paschal  meal — mentioned  by  him 
alone — and  that  suggests  the  bread  and  the 
other  cup,  which  he  at  once  proceeds  to  speak 
of. 

18.  According  to  John,  Jesus  was  impelled 
now  to  point  out  his  betrayer  by  his  own  in- 
ward trouble,  the  presence  of  the  traitor  weigh- 
ing heavily  upon  his  spirit.  Verily  I  say  unto 
you — no  wonder  that  his  solemn  formula  came 
forth  now — One  of  you  which  eateth  Avith 
me  shall  betray  me.  Literally,  "  One  of  you 
shall  betray  me,  even  he  that  eateth  with  me ;" 
the  last  phrase  peculiar  to  Mark  in  its  form, 
though  Luke  preserves  the  idea.  It  is  an  allu- 
sion to  Ps.  41  :  9,  and  it  means,  not  "who  is 
eating  with  me  now,"  but  "my  companion, 
one  who  has  been  so  near  to  me  as  to  be 
my  companion  at  table."  The  very  words  of 
the  psalm,  probably,  had  just  been  uttered 
(John  1.S:  18).  This  was  the  first  definite  an- 
nouncement that  the  betrayer  was  to  be  one 
of  the  twelve,  though  John  6  :  70  was  a  ter- 
rible hint  of  it. 

19.  They  had  not  distrusted  one  another — so 
Luke  and  John  expressly — and  did  not  even 
now  suspect  the  guilty  one.  But  perhaps  they 
had  reason  to  suspect  him,  and  would  have 
done  so  if  they  had  been  less  simple.    They 


^08 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


20  And  he  answered  and  said  unto  them,  //  is  one  of     20  And  he  said  unto  them,  Jt  is  one  of  the  twelve,  he 


the  twelve,  that  dippeth  with  me  in  the  dish. 

21  The  ^^ou  of  nuin  indeed  goeth,  as  it  is  written  of 
him  :  but  woe  to  that  man  by  whom  the  !^on  of  man  is 
betrayed  '.  good"  were  it  for  that  man  if  he  had  never 
been  born. 


21  that  dippeth  with  me  in  the  dish.  For  the  ."^on  of 
man  goeth, even  as  it  is  written  of  him  :  but  woe  unto 
that  man  througli  whom  the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed ! 
good  were  it  'for  that  man  if  he  had  not  been  born. 


a  Matt.  18  :  6,  7. 1  Gr.  /or  him  if  that  man. 


began  to  be  sorrowful.  How  could  they 
be  otherwise?  Each  heart  sprang  up  to  deny 
the  charge,  yet  the  denial  admitted  by  its  form 
tliat  the  Lord  mitst  be  right  in  making  it. — Is 
it  I  ?  or  rather,  since  the  interrogative  word 
meti  expects  a  negative  answer,  "  It  is  not  I,  is 
it?  Thou  canst  not  mean  me?"  No  one  denies 
the  charge  a-s  a  whole,  but  each,  so  far  as  he 
dares,  repels  it  from  himself  The  clause,  and 
another  said,  Is  it  I  ?  is  omitted  from  the 
best  text :  it  I'crtainly  is  superfluous. — John  now 
asked,  at  the  suggestion  of  Peter,  who  the  be- 
traj^er  was,  and  obtained  privately  (not  other- 
wise) the  sign  of  the  morsel  from  the  dish.  It 
is  not  certain  that  the  information  thus  given 
went  even   to  Peter,   who   had  sought  for  it 

(John  13  :  23-26). 

20.  For  others  of  the  company  besides  John 
there  was  a  second  answer,  narrowing  the  circle 
more  closely  than  that  of  verse  18.  One  of 
the  twelve,  that  dippeth  with  me  in  the 
dish.  The  word  is  a  diminutive,  denoting 
probably  a  side-di.sh,  perhaps  containing  the 
conserve  of  sweet  fruits.  A  single  dish  might 
serve  three  or  four  of  the  company.  Thus  he 
diminished  the  circle  in  which  the  betrayer  was 
to  be  found. — It  is  not  certain  (see  below)  that 
all  this  was  heard  and  noticed  by  the  entire 
circle.  Apparently  it  was  the  intent  of  Jesus  to 
make  Judas  aware  that  he  was  known,  and  to 
compel  him  to  leave  the  company ;  yet  he 
would  do  this  half  confidentially  and  by  grad- 
ual approaches,  for  the  sake  of  Judas  himself 
He  would  let  him  see  exposure  coming  that,  if 
such  a  thing  were  possible,  he  might  even  yet 
confess  and  repent.  "  As  I  live,  saith  the  I>ord 
God,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the 
wicked  ;  but  that  the  wicked  turn  from  his  way 
and  live"  (Ezek.  23 ;  11). 

21.  The  Son  of  man  indeed  goeth — de- 
parts, makes  his  exit  from  life ;  a  softened  ex- 
pression for  his  death — as  it  is  written  of 
him — written  (as  he  said  at  Mark  9  :  12)  that 
he  must  suffer  many  things  and  be  set  at 
naught;  written  as  in  Isa.  53.  In  Luke,  "Go- 
eth as  it  hath  been  determined."  Compare  the 
record  of  his  positive'  submission  to  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  Scriptures  in  the  garden  (Matt.  26: 54). 
But  the  guilt  of  wilful  human  agents  is  tin- 
aflfected  by  prophecies  and  predeterminations. 


So  it  is  said  concerning  Judas  himself  in  the 
prayer  of  the  apostles  (Acts  1 :  25) ;  concerning 
the  Jews,  in  the  discourse  of  Peter  (Acts  2 :  23). — 
Prophecy  does  not  interfere  with  responsibility, 
nor  wtis  there  any  such  preapj^ointment  of  God 
as  to  diminish  the  guilt  of  that  man  by  whom 
the  Son  of  man  was  betrayed.  His  sin,  our 
Lord  says,  makes  of  his  life  an  utter  failure, 
misfortune,  curse ;  better  for  him  never  to  have 
had  it. — A  l)ricf  but  tcrrilile  saying.  Good 
were  it  for  that  man  if  he  had  never  been 
born.  It  implies  that  to  most  men  it  is  better 
to  have  been  born  ;  it  teaches  that  there  is  sin- 
ning that  utterly  forfeits  the  good  of  existence ; 
it  leaves  Judas  to  a  doom  too  fearful  to  be  con- 
templated. This  is  the  clearest  scriptural  illus- 
tration of  that  "  forfeiting  of  one's  self  ( Luke  9 :  25) 
and  "loss  of  the  soul"  (Maiii8:3fi)  which  sin 
renders  possible  to  man.  There  is  no  one  but 
Judas,  however,  who  is  expressly  said  to  have 
met  with  such  an  end— a  grave  hint  to  us  to 
be  very  slow  in  passing  explicit  personal  con- 
demnation. 

Here  Matthew  adds  that  Judas  at  la.st  said, 
like  the  rest,  "Is  it  I?"  and  was  definitely 
pointed  out.  Yet  John  says  that  even  when 
he  left  the  room  his  treason  was  not  under- 
stood by  the  other  apostles,  but  they  supposed 
he  was  going  out  as  the  trusted  servant  of  the 
company  (John  13 :  27-30).  If  tlie  two  reports  are 
to  be  harmonized,  it  must  be  by  the  very  nat- 
ural supposition  that  the  conversation  was  car- 
ried on,  partly  at  least,  in  groups,  and  many 
things  passed  half  noticed,  or  noticed  only  by 
a  few.  Perhaps  we  often  read  such  narratives 
too  stiffly,  and  overlook  the  free  and  informal 
nature  of  the  interviews  that  are  recorded. — It 
must  have  been  at  this  point  that  Judas  witli- 
drew.  The  weight  of  opinion  was  formerly  in 
favor  of  the  view  that  he  was  present  at  the 
Supper;  but  in  more  recent  times  the  opjiosite 
view  is  more  generally  held. 

22-26.  Parallel  to  the  synoptical  narratives 
of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Sujipcr  is  Paul's 
statement  in  1  Cor.  11  :  23-25.  The  four  narra- 
tives fall  into  two  pairs,  marked  by  some  differ- 
ences. Matthew  and  Mark  are  closely  parallel, 
and  so  are  Luke  and  Paul.  John  has  no  allu- 
sion to  the  Supper. 

22.  As   they  did  eat,  or  "  were  eating." 


Ch.  XIV.] 


MARK. 


209 


22  1  And"  as  they  did  eat,  Jesus  took  bread,  and 
blessed,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  to  them,  and  said, 
Take,''  eat;  this  is  my  body. 


22     And   as  they  were  eating,  he  took  'bread,  and 
when  he  had  blessed,  he  brake  it,  and  gave  lo  them, 


a  Matt.  26  :  26,  etc.;  Luke  22 :  19;  1  Cor.  11 :23,  etc 6  Jubu  6  :  48-58. 1  Or,  a  loaf 


Still  engaged  with  the  Paschal  meal ;  there  was 
no  s{)ecial  preparation  or  elearinj^  of  the  table, 
as  if  to  do  justice  to  a  new  bepnning.  All  was 
simple  and  quiet.  Luke  h:is  already  mentioned 
(22 :  17, 18)  the  passing  around  of  one  "  cup  "  of 
the  passover,  and  some  expositors  think  they 
can  identify  the  place  of  the  cup  that  entered 
into  the  Supj)er  in  the  order  of  the  Paschal 
feast.  But  it  is  not  certain  that  the  order  of 
the  feast,  as  given  by  Jewish  authorities,  was 
exactly  that  of  our  Lord's  time,  or  that,  if  it 
was,  he  strictly  followed  it.  The  foundation 
for  a  definite  judgment,  therefore,  is  scarc:ely 
adequate ;  and  it  is  best  simply  to  recognize 
the  fact  that  he  took  one  of  the  cups  of  the 
feast,  as  being  ready  to  his  hand,  and  turned 
it  to  this  new  use  and  meaning. — He  took 
bread.  The  bread  that  was  at  hand  on  the 
tabic,  which  was  the  unleavened  barley-bread, 
in  thin  flat  loaves.  As  there  W£is  no  special 
preparation  for  the  new  institution,  so  there 
was  no  providing  of  new  materials.  No  spe- 
cial significance  appears  in  the  fact  that  the 
bread  was  imleaveneil,  and  there  is  nothing  to 
make  us  doubt  that  he  would  liave  used  leav- 
ened bread  just  as  readily,  if  that  liad  lieen 
before  him. — And  blessed,  and  brake  it. 
Literally,  "  having  blessed,  he  broke  (it)."  The 
implietl  j)ronoun  is  governed  by  the  verb,  not 
by  the  participle  ;  it  is  not  directly  said  that  he 
blessed  the  bread,  but  that  he  broke  the  bread. 
The  participle  may  mean  either  "  having  bless- 
ed God" — i.e.  by  giving  thanks — or  "having 
invoked  the  blessing  of  God"  upon  the  bread 
and  those  who  were  to  partake  of  it.  In  either 
case  this  was  no  "  prayer  of  consecration :"  it 
was  the  simple  "grace"  or  "blessing"  over 
food,  though  the  contents  of  the  prayer  may 
have  been  modified  l)y  his  thoughts,  made 
even  unwontedly  great  and  tender  by  the  occa- 
sion. In  Luke  and  Paul  the  word  is  "  having 
given  thanks,"  the  same  word  tliat  Matthew 
and  Mark  use  when  they  speak  of  his  prayer 
over  the  cup. — He  brake  the  bread  into  frag- 
ments ;  whether  using  one  loaf  or  more  does 
not  appear— And  gave  to  them.  The  apos- 
tles, as  they  reclined  about  the  table.  In  that 
position,  it  is  most  likely  that  he  broke  the 
bread  upon  a  plate  and  handed  it  to  them.— 
And  said,  Take.  The  word  eat  is  omitted 
here  from  the  best  text,  though  unquestioned 
in  Matthew ;  both  words  are  omitted  by  Luke 
14 


1  and  Paul. — Take — i.  e.  with  the  liand,  in  order 

j  to  eat  it.  There  is  no  spiritual  mystery  in  the 
word,  as  if  it  related  U)  some  mystical  appro- 
I  priation. — This  is  my  body.  80  Matthew 
!  and  Mark ;  Luke,  "  this  is  my  body  which  is 
given  for  you"  (present  i)articiple,  "is  being 
given");  Paul,  "this  is  my  body  which  is  for 
you."  The  word  "broken"  ("which  is  broken 
for  you,"  1  Cor.  11  :  24),  though  ancient,  is  un- 
doubtedly a  gloss  intended  to  complete  the 
sense.  It  must  be  omitted,  and  there  is  no 
original  scriptural  authority  for  .saying  "  which 
is  broken  for  you."  Neither  is  the  "  breaking" 
of  our  Saviours  body  one  of  the  facts  that  are 
symbolized  in  tlie  bread  of  the  Supper. 

All  the  four  give  the  simple  words  this  is 
my  body.  There  was  no  possibility  of  a  lit- 
eral acceptation  of  liis  words  by  the  disciples, 
for  his  body  was  visibly  and  tangibly  among 
them,  as  real  to  their  .senses  as  tlieir  own  bod- 
ies. But  there  was  no  danger  of  such  an  ac- 
ceptatit)n  of  them,  for  the  disciples  were  men 
of  Oriental  mind,  to  whom  such  figurative  lan- 
guage would  not  be  peri)lexing;  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, with  its  manifold  figures  and  resem- 
blances (e.  g.  "  the  Lord  God  is  a  sun  and  a 
shield,"  Ps.  84  :  11 ;  "  we  are  the  clay,  and 
thou  our  potter,"  Isa.  64  :  8 ;  "  the  seven  good 
kine  are  seven  years,"  Gen.  41  :  2())  and  the 
words  of  Jesus  him.self  (e.  g.  "  I  am  tiie  door," 
John  10  :  9 ;  "  the  field  is  the  world ;  the  good 
seed  are  the  children  of  the  kingdom ;  but 
the  tares  are  the  children  of  the  wicJced  one," 
Matt.  13  :  38)  would  render  this  language  per- 
fectly plain.  Tliey  would  understand  him  to 
mean,  "this  bread  which  I  offer  you  is  the 
symbol  of  my  body."  Any  suggestion  of  lit- 
eralism, as  if  Jesus  meant  that  the  bread  by 
miracle  wds  literally  his  body,  would  liave 
amazed  the  disciples  beyond  measure.  How 
absolutely  inconsistent  it  would  have  been, 
too,  with  the  simjile,  earnest,  natural  character 
of  the  whole  occa.sion  ! 

In  Matthew  and  Mark  it  is  merely  "  this  is 
my  body" — words  that  convey  the  announce- 
ment of  his  death,  but  nothing  more ;  Luke  and 
Paul  add  the  destination  of  that  body  to  the 
good  of  men.  for  whose  sake  it  is  "given"  to 
death  :  "  wliich  is  for  you  "  or  "  which  is  given 
for  you."  Thus  the  facts  symbolizwl  in  the 
bread  of  the  Supper  are  (1)  the  giving  of  his 
body  to  death,  and  (2)  the-fiictthat  it  was  given 


210 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


23  And  he  took  the  cup;  and  when   he  had  given 
thanks,  he  gave  //  to  theni :  and  they  all  drank  of  it. 

24  And  he  said  unto  them,  Tliis"  is  my  hlood  of  the 
new  tesiament,  which  is  shed  for  many. 


23 and  said,  Take  ye:  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took 
a  cup,  and   when    he    had  given   thanks,   lie   gave 

24 to  them:  and  they  all  drank  of  it.  And  he  said 
unto  them,  This  is  my  blood  of  the  'covenant,  which 


a  1  Cor.  10 :  16    John  6  :  53. 1  Some  ancient  authoiitiea  insert  new. 


to  death  for  men.  In  other  words,  (1)  his  sac- 
rifice or  self-giving,  the  completeness  of  it  being 
the  point  first  made  prominent  by  the  mention 
of  deatli,  and  (2)  his  sacrifice  or  self-giving  for 
the  good  of  others — i.  e.  of  men.  Beyond  these 
facts  the  symbolic  teaching  of  the  bread  does 
not  extend,  the  purpose  of  his  sacrifice  or  the 
object  to  be  gained  by  it  being  first  suggested  by 
the  cup.  Thus  there  is  a  progress  of  thought  in 
the  service,  often  overlooked,  but  evidently  in- 
tended by  our  Saviour.- — The  offering  of  the 
symbol  of  his  body  to  be  eaten  would  remind 
the  disciples  of  the  "hard  saying"  of  John  6  : 
53-56.  But  that  hard  saying  was  a  necessary 
one,  and  this  symbol  was  intended  to  keep  it 
constantly  in  mind — namely,  that  there  is  no 
true  life  without  a  personal  appropriation  of 
the  Christ  who  died  for  men,  and  a  personal 
assimilation  of  him  in  his  self-sacrifice  to  the 
purpose  of  new  life  in  the  soul.  The  eating  is 
the  symbol  of  this  appropriation  and  assimila- 
tion. 

23.  And  he  took  the  cup.  Literally,  "And 
taking  a  cup."  So  Matthew  and  Mark ;  Luke 
and  Paul  say  "  the  cup,"  by  which,  however, 
they  mean  the  well-known  cup  of  the  ordi- 
nance. He  took  "  a  cup  "  of  the  red  wine  min- 
gled with  water  with  which  the  table  was  sup- 
plied. There  is  no  mention  of  wine  at  the 
passover  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  before  our 
Lord's  time  the  various  "cups"  of  the  feast — 
never  less  than  four  in  number — had  become  a 
regular  part  of  the  service.  The  wine  was  the 
common  wine  of  the  country,  and  was  mixed 
with  water  as  it  was  drunk.  Here,  again,  our 
Lord  provided  nothing  new,  Init  took  what 
was  before  him. — And  when  he  had  given 
thanks.  The  same  word  that  is  used  by  Luke 
and  Paul  of  the  first  prayer.  Hence  there  was 
no  new  quality  or  character  in  the  second.  This 
too  was  a  simple  "  grace  before  meat,"  though 
we  cannot  refrain  from  thinking  that  he  who 
spake  as  "  never  man  spake  "  gave  it,  out  of  his 
own  heart,  a  (|uality  for  ever  unmatched.  There 
were  Jewish  forms  of  prayer  and  thanksgiving 
to  be  used  over  the  cups  of  the  passover,  but  it 
is  hard  to  believe  that  our  Saviour  confined  him- 
self to  them  at  this  time,  beautiful  as  they  may 
have  been. — He  gave  it  (the  cup)  to  them  : 
and  they  all  drank  of  it  (or  from  it).  And 
he  said  unto  them,  while  they  were  drink- 


ing; so  the  words  naturally  mean.  In  Mat- 
thew, "  he  gave  it  to  them,  saying.  Drink  from 
it,  all  of  you;"  Luke  and  Paul,  simply,  "in  like 
manner  also  the  cup,  after  supper,"  in  which  the 
second  prayer  is  not  mentioned,  except  by  im- 
plication in  the  phrase,  "  in  like  manner." 

24.  Testament  (diathcke)  should  be  trans- 
lated "  covenant."  It  would  be  a  great  help  to 
true  understanding  if  our  Bible  were  divided 
into  "Scriptures  of  the  old  covenant"  and 
"Scriptures  of  the  new  covenant;"  then  such 
passages  as  this  would  readily  fall  into  their 
true  place.  Here,  however,  on  manuscript  au- 
thority, the  word  new  is  to  be  omitted,  both  in 
Matthew  and  in  Mark.  Then  we  shall  read, 
This  is  my  blood  of  the  covenant,  which  is 
shed  (or  poured  out)  for  many.  Matthew 
adds,  "  unto  remission  of  sins ;"  Luke  and 
Paul,  "  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my 
blood;"  Luke  adds,  "which  is  shed"  (or  pour- 
ed out)  "for  you."  There  is  a  grammatical  ir- 
regularity in  Luke's  sentence,  however,  which 
the  revisers  have  attempted  to  represent  by 
translating,  "  even  that  wliich  is  jwured  out  for 
you."  Is,  as  before,  is  "  the  copula  of  symbolic 
resemblance"  {Meyer),  and  the  saying,  in  Mark, 
means,  "  This  which  I  offer  you  is  the  symbol 
of  my  blood,"  etc.  But  that  which  is  symbol- 
ized is  not  merely  "  my  blood :"  it  is  "  my  blood 
of  the  covenant,"  or  "my  covenant-blood;" 
which  means,  "  my  blood  poured  out  in  death, 
that  it  may  be,  in  the  spiritual  realm,  what  the 
ancient  blood  of  the  covenant  symbolized." — 
Here  we  reach  the  announcement  of  the  pur- 
pose of  his  sacrifice.  The  word  "  new  "  is  im- 
plied in  the  sense,  though  not  expressed,  for  of 
course  it  is  of  the  new  covenant  that  he  speaks. 
The  new  covenant  was  predicted  in  Jer.  31  :  31- 
34,  and  is  identified  with  the  gospel  in  Heb.  8  : 
7-12.  The  blessings  promised  in  it  are  (1)  par- 
don of  sin  and  acceptance  with  God,  and  (2)  the 
writing  of  the  law  of  God  in  the  heart,  and  con- 
sequent knowledge  of  God  on  the  part  of  men. 
These  are  the  two  great  gifts  of  the  gos{)el,  res- 
toration to  God  and  assimilation  to  God.  Now, 
Jesus  calls  his  blood  the  "  covenant-blood  "  of 
that  covenant.  For  the  significance  of  "  the 
blood  of  the  covenant,"  see  Ex.  24  :  3-8,  which 
our  Lord  evidently  had  in  mind.  Tlie  same 
scene  is  again  alluded  to,  tliough  perhaps  not 
that  scene  exclusively,  in  Heb.  9  :  19,  20.    See 


Ch.  XIV.] 


MARK. 


2U 


other  references  to  the  blood  of  the  covenant 
(but  now  of  the  new  covenant)  in  Heb.  10  :  29 
and  13  :  20.     The  bhxxl  of  the  covenant  was 
sacrificial  blood,  of  burnt-uirerin'!:s  and  peace- 
offerings,  shed  and  made  ready  at  the  moment 
of  the  establishment  and  ratification  of  the  cov- 
enant between  Jehovah  and  Israel.     It  was  di- 
vided into  two  parts  and  half  of  it  was  sprin- 
kled (or  rather  "  cast,"  poured  out)  upon  the 
altar  of  Jehovah ;  then  the  book  of  the  cov- 
enant was  read  in  the  hearing  of  the  people, 
and  they  assented  to  it ;  and  then  the  remain- 
ing half  of  the  blood  was  sprinkled  (or  "  cast," 
poured  out)  on  the  people.     The  ceremony  was 
a  sacrificial  act  toward  God  and  an  act  of  self- 
dedication  and  consent  to  God  on  the  part  of 
man.     It  was  the  sealing  of  a  covenant  of  fel- 
lowship and  sacramental  union  between  Jeho- 
vah and  his  people ;  and  the  blood,  offered  to 
God  and  applied  to  man,  was  the  means  and 
the  token  by  which  the  covenant  was  brought 
into  full  etfect.     Now,  our  Lord  says  the  new 
and  better  covenant^ — the  covenant  of  actual 
pardon  and  of  law  written  in  the  heart — has  its 
covenant-blood,  as  had  the  old ;  and  he  saj's  that 
he  sheds  his  own  blood  as  covenant-blood  to 
bring  God  and  man  into  the  actual  union  and 
fellowship  promised  in  the  new  covenant.    His 
offering  of  himself  is  to  be  acceptable  in  the 
sight  of  God  (Eph.  5:2),  as  tlie  blood  sprinkled 
on  the  altar  was,  and  it  is  to  be  accepted  by 
men,  through  faith,  as  the   means  by  which 
tliey  are  brouglit  into  "the  eternal  covenant" 
of  genuine  fellowship  with  God.   One  of  the  ob- 
jects of  the  new  C(jvcnant  ( Jer.  si :  34)  is  specified 
by  our  Lord  here,  according  to  Matthew,  "unto 
remission  of  sins."     To  bring  this  to  pa.ss,  his 
offering  of  himself  reaches  Godward  and  reaches 
manward. — This  blood  is  shed  (or  poured  out) 
for  many.   So  Matthew  and  Mark.    Paul  inter-  I 
prets  this  to  mean  "for  all"  (2Cor. 5:U;  1  Tim.2:6), 
and  so  does  John  (1  John  2 : 2).   As  no  "  breaking  " 
of  our  Saviour's  body  is  symbolized  by   the  j 
breaking  of  the  bread,  so  it  woulil  be  hard  to  | 
show  that  the  "pouring  out"  of  his  blood  is  i 
symbolized  by  the  pouring  out  of  the  wine;  I 
for  the  simple  reiison  that  the  pouring  out  of  , 
tlie  wine  is  not  mentioned  in  the  or,iginal  ser- 
vice.— The  drinking  of  that  which  represents' 
the  covenant-blood  is  itself  significant;  it  refers 
again  to  John  G  :  56  :  "  He  that  eatethmy  flesh 
and  drinkcth  my  biooxl  dwelletli  in  me,  and  I 
in  him."     It  is  significant,  also,  in  connection 
with  the  covenant.     Tlie  old   covenant-blood 
was  externally  sprinkled,  for  the  covenant  was  j 
largely  e.vternal ;  the  new  is  to  be  drunk  (in  i 
svmbol),  for  the  covenant  is  inward,  spiritual. 


dealing  with  the  soul  and  its  character  and  des- 
tinies. As  the  sprinkling  marked  the  accept- 
ance of  the  outward  covenant,  so  the  drinking 
signifies  the  acceptance  of  the  inward  covenant, 
and  of  Christ  as  the  "Mediator"  of  it  (Heb. 8:6). 
It  implies  consent  of  the  soul  to  the  new  and 
better  covenant,  to  its  lujliness,  its  unworldliness, 
its  purpose  of  fellowship  with  God  and  likeness 
to  him.  Whoever  "drinks  this  cup"  pleilges 
himself  at  once  to  reliance  upon  the  Saviour 
whose  reconciling  death  is  here  represented, 
and  to  that  godly.  Christlike  life  which  the  new 
covenant  contemplates.  To  partake  of  his  Sup- 
per is  to  accept,  not  only  the  saving  benefit,  but 
also  the  guiding  light  and  the  heavenly  spirit, 
of  his  new  covenant. 

Luke  and  Paul  add  the  words  of  permanent 
institution,  "  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me." 
Paul  uses  them  twice,  both  of  the  bread  and  of 
the  cup,  thus  putting  the  two  on  the  .same  level. 
He  is  not  speaking,  either,  to  the  original  eleven 
or  to  any  set  of  office-bearers,  but  to  the  mis- 
cellaneous church  at  Corinth.  So  the  with- 
holding of  the  cup  from  the  laity  was  unknown 
to  Paul. — It  is  noticeable,  also,  that  it  is  of  the 
cup,  not  of  the  bread,  that  all  are  exjiressly 
said  to  have  partaken  (verse  2.1). 

Concerning  tlie  in.stitution  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, note  (1)  the  extreme  simplicity  of  the 
event.  The  time  chosen  was  at  the  simplest 
and  most  domestic  of  all  the  Jewish  festivals; 
the  pa.ssover  was  a  household  celebration;  Tlie 
materials  were  the  simplest  and  most  ordinarj"-: 
he  took,  not  the  land)  of  the  passovcr,  which 
had  associations  of  a  sjtecial  and  limited  kind 
in  the  national  history,  but  the  simple,  ordinary 
food  and  drink  of  man,  and  used  them  to  ex- 
press the  ideas  of  his  kingdom.  The  central 
ideas  of  his  kingdom  were  expressed,  too,  in 
the  simplest  form,  without  amplification  or 
doctrinal  development.  The  vast  structure  of 
sacramental  doctrine  that  has  been  built  upon 
this  act  of  his  is  like  a  pyramid  upon  its  ai>ex. 
No  transubstantiation,  and  nothing  that  sug- 
gests it;  no  "  real  presence,"  except  of  him  who 
broke  the  bread  ;  no  trace  of  a  sacrificial  idea  : 
no  pomp  and  show ;  no  hint  that  this  was  to 
be  the  centre  of  ceremonial  worship,  or  of  wor- 
ship at  all.  It  was  simi>ly  the  partaking,  with 
vocal  thanksgiving,  of  common  biead  and  wine, 
in  which  a  definite  syml)olic  significance  had 
been  recognized.  The  celebration  appears  in 
like  simjilicity  after  the  day  of  Pentecost.  (See 
Acts  2  :  46  ;  20  :  11.)  (2)  The  testimony  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus. 
From  the  day  of  Pentecost  until  now  it  has 
been  observed,  with  great  varieties  of  form  and 


212 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


25  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  1  will  drink  no  more  of  the 
fruit  of  the  vine,  until  that  day  that  1  drink  it"  new 
in  the  kingdom  of  ood. 


25  is  shed  for  many.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  shall  no 
more  drink  of  the  fruit  of  tiie  vine,  until  that  day 
when  1  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom  of  (jod. 


a  Joel  3:18;  Amos  9  :  13,  14. 


of  idea,  but  always  "in  remembrance  of"  him 
in  liis  death  for  sinners.  Like  the  Lord's  Day, 
it  is  an  omnipresent  witness  to  the  reality  of  the 
facts  which  it  commemorates.  This  testimony 
is  not  weakened  by  any  perversions  of  the 
ordinance  :  it  is  the  existence  of  the  ordinance 
that  is  significant.  (3)  Our  Lord  gave  no  name 
to  the  ordinance.  It  was  early  called  "  the 
breaking  of  bread"  (Acts ^: 42).  Paul  called  it 
"  the  Lord's  Supper"  (1  Cor.  11 :  20),  using  the  ad- 
jective kuriakos  that  was  coined  for  Christian 
purposes  and  is  applied  in  the  New  Testament 
only  to  the  Lord's  Supper  and  (Rev.  1 :  10)  to  the 
Lord's  Day.  The  word  koinonia,  "participa- 
tion "  or  "  communion,"  is  used  of  it  descriptively 
(1  Cor.  10 :  16),  but  Dot  in  Scripture  as  a  name ;  and 
"  communion "  in  its  modern  religious  sense 
does  not  represent  the  meaning  of  that  word. 
"The  Communion"  is  not  a  good  scriptural 
designation  of  the  ordinance.  The  name  "  Eu- 
charist "  is  derived  from  the  word  eucharhtesas, 
"having  given  thanks,"  by  which  our  Lord's 
act  of  prayer  is  described ;  but  it  is  an  acciden- 
tal name,  not  scriptural,  and  not  truly  descrip- 
tive. "The  Lord's  Supper"  seems  to  be  the 
best  name  for  general  use.  (4)  Why  did  the 
ajiostles  alone  partake?  The  Lord's  Supper 
was  to  be  a  commemorative  institution,  and 
depended  for  its  significance  upon  his  death. 
His  death,  though  near,  was  still  future;  the 
time  had  not  come,  therefore,  strictly,  for  the 
institution  to  exist.  Yet  he  himself  must  estab- 
lish it.  The  fitting  time  was  evidently  at  the 
very  end  of  his  life ;  and  he  chose  the  very  last 
evening.  The  fitting  company  was  evidently 
tlie  company  that  was  closest  aVjout  him ;  for 
all  that  he  could  do  was  to  leave  the  institution 
as  a  tru.st,  to  be  understood  and  used  after  he 
was  gone.  It  would  not  have  suited  such  a 
purpose  to  call  in  all  who  loved  him ;  therefore 
•  he  histituted  his  Supper  in  the  presence  of  the 
apostles  alone,  and  left  it  for  them  to  establish 
in  the  Christian  churches  when  these  should 
come  into  being.  This  they  did ;  and  we  find 
the  Lord's  Supper,  in  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles, 
existing  in,  and  administered  by,  the  various 

churches  (Acts  2  :  42.  46;  20  :  7  ;  1  Cor.  10  :  21 ;  11  :  20-34). 

25.  Introduced  without  a  connective ;  intro- 
duced in  Matthew  by  "  But."  Instead  of  I  will 
drink  no  more,  translate,  "I  shall  no  more 
drink."  It  is  a  simple  future,  predictive,  not 
expressive  of  will.    I  is  not  emphatic  in  any 


of  the  records  of  this  saying. — Of  the  frnit — 
literally,  offspring  or  product  —  of  the  vine. 

A  solemn  and  emphatic  variation  from  the 
ordinary  form  of  speech. — New  {kainon).  Not 
neo7i,  "  freshly  made,"  "  recent,"  like  the  new 
wine  (oijws  jieos)  that  will  burst  the  bottles 
(Matt.  9:17),  but  of  ucw  kind,  corresponding  to 
the  new  covenant  that  has  just  been  mentioned 
or  suggested  (IiC  kaine  diatheke,  Luke  and  Paul; 
the  thought,  though  not  the  word,  present  in 
Matthew  and  Mark),  and  to  the  New  Jerusalem 
and  the  new  heaven  and  the  new  earth.  The 
verse  is  the  same  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  save 
that  Matthew  says  "this  fruit  of  the  vine"  and 
"drink  it  new  with  you."  "This  fruit  of  the 
vine" — i.  e.  the  passover  wine,  wJiich  had  been 
used  both  in  the  old  institution  and  in  the  new. 
The  verse  has  this  peculiar  difficulty,  tliat  Luke 
has  it  in  substance  twice,  but  in  connection 
with  the  i)assover,  and  not  at  all  with  the  Lord's 
Supper ;  spoken  once  of  the  passover  in  general 
(Luke  22 :  16) :  "  For  I  Say  unto  you,  I  Avill  not  any 
more  eat  thereof,  until  it  be  fulfilled  in  the 
kingdom  of  God ;"  and  once  of  one  of  the  cups 
of  the  passover :  "  For  I  say  unto  you,  I  shall 
not  drink  from  henceforth  of  the  fruit  of  the 
vine,  until  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  come." 
Whether  the  saying  was  suggested  bj^  the  pass- 
over  or  by  the  Lord's  Supper  must  remain  in 
doubt.  Connected  with  the  passover,  it  would 
occasion  no  difficulty ;  connected  with  the 
Supper,  it  has  occasioned  much  perplexity. 
Alexander,  on  the  one  hand,  is  not  satisfactory 
when  he  says:  "The  simj)lest  explanation  of 
these  words  is  that  which  makes  them  a  solemn 
though  figurative  declaration  that  the  Jewish 
passover  was  now  to  be  for  ever  superseded  by 
the  Lord's  Supper  as  a  Cliristian  ordinance." 
On  the  other  hand,  the  popular  interpretation 
which  looks  to  an  actual  drinking  by  our  Lord 
of  new  wine  with  his  people  in  ages  yet  to 
come,  the  wine  being  a  literal  product  of  the 
renovated  earth,  seems  to  sacrifice  the  cha- 
racteristic style  of  scriptural  prophecy  for  a 
bald  and  barren  literalism.  Something  of  mystic 
symbolism  surely  is  here  :  our  Lord  was  speak- 
ing of  spiritual  things.  Whatever  obscurity 
may  remain  in  the  special  form  of  expression, 
the  general  thought  appears  to  be,  "  I  have  done 
with  passover  wine,  I  have  done  with  symbols. 
Hitherto  has  been  the  old,  symbolic,  prepar- 
atory.; but  from  this  hour,  when  the  Son  of 


Ch.  XIV.] 


MARK. 


213 


26  If  And  when  they  had  sung  an  hymn,  they  went 
out  into  the  mount  of  Olives. 

27  And  .lesiLs  saith  unto  them,  All  ye  shall  be  of- 
fended because  of  me  this  night:  for  it  is  written,"  I 
will  smite  the  shepherd,  and  the  sheep  sliall  be  scat- 
tered. 

28  Hut'  after  that  I  am  risen,  I  will  go  before  you 
into  (ialilee. 

2i)  Hut'  I'eter  said  unto  him.  Although  all  shall  be 
OlTcnded,  yet  will  not  I. 


26  And  when  they  had  sung  a  hymn,  they  went  out 
unto  the  mount  of  Olives. 

27  And    .lesus   saith    unto    them,   All   ye   shall    be 
'otfended:  for  it  is  written,  I  will  smite  the  shep- 

28  herd,  and  the  sheep  shall  be  scattered  abroad,     llow- 
beit,  after  I  am  raised  up,  I  will  go  before  you  into 

29Cialilee.     But  I'eter  said  unto  him,  Although  all 


aZech.  13  :  7....&  ch.  16  :  7.... c  Matt.  26  :  33,  34;  Luke  22  :  33,  34 ;  John  13:37,38.- 


-1  Gr.  earned  to  tttimblt. 


man  is  glorified,  the  new  begins"  {to  kainon). 
"  IIc.iK^oforth  to  me — and  to  you  with  me — all 
is  fiillilment;  and  the  relation  of  men  to  God 
whicli  my  joy  will  henceforth  commemorate 
is  the  new  relation  in  which  all  these  signs  and 
symbols  find  their  corresponding  reality." 
Thus  the  Christian  commemoration  in  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  parallel  to  his  drinking  the 
wine  new  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  is  to  us, 
in  its  measure,  an  "  entering  into  the  joy  of 
our  Lord." — This  saying  does  not  prove  that 
he  did  not  then  drink  of  the  cup.  Even  if 
uttered  at  the  Supper,  it  might  be  spoken  in 
reference  to  a  last  partaking  of  the  preparatory 
and  symbolic. 

26.  The  singing  was  the  closing  act  in  the 
celebration  of  the  passover,  and  that  which  was 
sung  was  the  latter  part  of  the  Ilallel,  or  great 
song  of  praise  (Pa.  ii.i-iis).  The  first  two  of  these 
six  p.salms  were  sung  earlier  in  the  service,  and 
Ps.  115-118  at  this  iwint,  at  the  end.  There  is 
no  reason  to  doubt  that  Jesus  and  his  company 
followed  the  custom ;  and  Jesus,  as  the  cel- 
ebrant, would  not  only  sing,  but  lead  in  the 
singing.  Tliese  holy  songs  obtain  a  special  and 
most  touching  interest  from  being  thus  asso- 
ciated with  the  thoughts  of  our  Saviour  at  that 
solemn  moment.  (See  a  strikingly  eloquent 
and  sympathetic  portrayal  of  the  scene  in 
P/iilii(iin'stii.i,  chap,  xxviii.) — Before  they  went 
out  into  the  mount  of  Olives  the  great  con- 
versation of  John  11-lli  took  place,  and  the 
final  intercessory  prayer  of  Jesus  was  offered 

(John  17  :  l-2fi). 

27-31.  JESrS  FORETELLS  THE  DISPER- 
SION OF  THE  APOSTLES  AND  THE  DE- 
NLVLS  OF  PETER.  /'rjra/W.s-,  Matt.  26  :  31- 
35  ;  Luke  22  :  31-38 ;  John  13  :  3(>-38.— In  Luke 
and  Jolm  this  warning  seems  to  have  been 
spoken  before  tlie  going  out ;  in  Matthew  and 
Mark,  after.  The  narratives  differ,  but  the  dif- 
ference makes  no  difficulty. 

27.  All  ye  shall  be  offended  because  of 
me  this  night.  In  the  best  text  simply  "Ye 
shall  all  be  offended" — i.  c.  surprised,  shocked, 
disappointed,  broken  in  fixith.  It  is  a  pity  that 
there  is  no  English  word  that  represents  this 


[  Greek  word  better  than  the  literal  but  awkward 
"cause  to  stumble"  which  the  revisers  have 
usually  adopted.  "  Offend,"  however,  is  cer- 
tainly an  inadequate  rendering. — I  will  smite 
the  shepherd,  and  the  sheep  shall  be 
scattered.  Freely  quoted  from  Zech.  13  :  7 ; 
not  exactly  as  in  the  Hebrew  or  as  in  the  Septu- 
agint,  but  not  diverging  essentially  from  eitlier. 
He  had  called  himself  the  Good  Shepiierd  who 
would  lay  down  his  life  for  the  sheep  (John  lo :  ii), 
and  now  the  moment  was  at  hand.  The  cita- 
tion from  Zechariah  shows  (see  the  context 
there)  that  he  was  thinking  of  his  daith  in  the 
spirit  of  Isa.  53  :  5,  G,  10. — The  sheep  shall 
be  scattered.  A  sorrowful  forewarning  to 
them,  but  even  more  sorrowful  to  him  who 
knew  them  so  well  and  would  gladly  have 
saved  them  from  temptation  if  he  could. 

28.  A  promise  to  re-collect  the  scattered 
apostolic  body  in  Galilee.  The  promise  of  a 
resurrection  is  made  incidentally,  and  appears 
to  have  made  no  impression  whatever — not 
even  to  have  awakened  the  remembrance  of  the 
previous  prediction.  But  probably  the  accom- 
panying announcement,  implied  in  the  smiting 
of  the  Shepherd,  had  passed  lightly  over  them, 
scarcely  understood.  The  promise  of  meeting 
in  Galilee  was  recalled  to  them  by  the  tidings 
that  were  brought    from    the   deserted  tomb 

(Mark  16:  7). 

29,  30.  The  assertion  of  the  coming  failure 
on  the  part  of  the  disciples  was  resented,  almost, 
by  Peter;  he  knew  tliat  he  loved  his  Master, 
but  did  not  know  how  little  his  love  was  yet 
able  to  hear.  He  knew  that  the  spirit  was  will- 
ing, but  Wius  scarcely  aware  that  the  flesh  was 
weak.  This  was  bo;tsting,  and  rash  boasting; 
yet  there  was  a  genuine  love  beneath  it.  Al- 
though all  shall  be  offended,  yet  will  not 
I.  All  may  not  be  so  sure  as  I  of  their  own 
love.  Compare  the  searching  question,  "  Lovest 
thou  me  more  than  these?"  (john2i:i5).  "Are 
you  so  much  more  sure  of  your  own  heart?  Is 
your  love  that  stronger  love  that  you  thought 
it  was?"  Here  belongs,  probably,  the  remark- 
able saying,  "Simon,  Simon,  behold,  Satan  ask- 
ed to  have  you"  (or  "obtained  you  by  asking" 


214 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


?.0  And  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Verily  I  say  unto  thee, 
That  this  day,  oven  in  this  night,  before  the  cock  crow 
twice,  tliou  shalt  deny  me  thrice. 

31  i^ut  he  spake  the  more  vehemently,  If  I  should 
die  with  thee,  I  will  not  deny  thee  in  any  wise.  Like- 
wise also  said  they  all. 

32  And"  they  came  to  a  place  which  was  named 
Gethseiiiane:  and  he  saith  to  his  disciples,  Sit  ye  here, 
while  1  shall  pray. 


30  shall  he  'offended,  yet  will  not  \.  And  .Jesus  saith 
unto  him,  \  erily  I  say  unto  thee,  that  thou  to-day, 
even  this  night,  before   the  cock   crow  twice,  shalt 

31  deny  me  thrice.  But  he  spake  exceeding  vehe- 
mently, If  1  must  die  with  thee,  I  will  not  deny 
thee.    And  in  like  manner  also  said  they  all. 

32  And  they  come  unto  %  place  which  was  named 
Gethsemane :  and  he  saith  unto  his  disciples,  Sit  ye 


a  Matt.  26  :  36,  etc. ;  Luke  22  ;  .39  ;  Johu  18  :  1.- 


-1  Gr.  caused  to  stumhle 2  Gr.  an  enclosed  piece  of  ground. 


— i.  e.  all  of  you),  "  that  he  may  sift  you  as 
wheat,  but  I  have  prayed  for  thee,"  etc. — a  most 
impressive  illustration  of  our  Lord's  thought- 
fulness  for  the  soul  that  is  in  danger,  followed 
by  the  touching  answer  of  sincerity  and  self- 
ignorance  :  "  Lord,  I  am  ready  to  go  with  thee 
both  into  prison  and  to  death  "  (Luke  22: 33). 

30,  31.  Solemnly  emphatic  is  the  Lord's 
forewarning.  Mattliew  has  "  to-day,"  and  Luke 
"  in  this  night ;"  Mark  gives  both.  All  the 
other  three  have  "  before  the  cock  crow  ;"  Mark, 
before  the  cock  crow  twice.  This  is  his 
form  of  expression,  differing  from  the  others 
both  in  the  prediction  and  in  the  narrative  of 
the  denial.  (See  verses  68  and  72.)  There  was 
a  first  cock-crowing  recognized,  though  not  so 
prominent  as  that  which  was  commonly  called 
"  the  cock-crowing."  It  occurred  irregularly  a 
little  after  midnight,  while  the  well-known 
time  of  cock-crowing  was  at  the  earliest  day- 
break. If,  in  any  of  the  records,  the  statement 
of  particulars  liere  was  to  be  completed  by  per- 
sonal remembrance  and  a  keen  memory  was  to 
supply  details,  it  would  surely  be  in  the  Gospel 
that  felt  the  influence  of  Peter. — The  presence 
of  the  twice  in  Mark  may  be  due  to  the  fact 
that  Peter  remembered  the  sound  of  a  cock- 
crowing,  falling  half  noticed  upon  his  ear  in 
the  midst  of  his  danger  and  his  sin — a  sound 
that  ought  to  have  been  a  warning  to  him  even 
then.  —  Thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice.  No 
one  can  doubt  the  genuineness  of  this  ])redic- 
tion  ;  if  we  were  to  doubt  it,  we  should  have  to 
doubt  the  whole  history.  But  was  not  this  su- 
pernatural foresight?  The  definite  announce- 
ment of  three  denials  does  not  look  like  a  fore- 
casting of  probabilities  or  an  inference  from 
Peter's  weakness  and  danger.  It  is  a  claim  of 
true  foreknowledge. — As  for  Peter,  he  fell  here, 
as  at  Matt.  16  :  22,  into  presumptuous  contra- 
diction of  his  Master;  and  lie  was  not  content 
with  calm  utterance:  he  spake  the  more  ve- 
hemently, saying  more  than  was  necessary, 
making  his  professions  too  bold  and  open.  Yet 
he  was  not  alone  in  it;  all  the  disciples  did  the 
same,  though  the  record  seems  to  convey  the 
impression  that  his  boasting  was  deeper  than 
that  of  his  fellows.     He  alone  denied ;  and  he 


was  the  leader,   at  least  in  denying  that  he 
could  deny. 
32-42.  THE  AGONY  IN  GETHSEMANE. 

Parallels,  Matt.  26  :  36-46 ;  Luke  22  :  39-46 ; 
John  18  :  1. — Luke  and  John  place  here  the 
going  out  to  the  garden,  which  Matthew  and 
Mark  have  placed  a  little  earlier.  The  only 
question  involved  in  consequence  is  whether 
the  conversation  about  the  desertion  and  denial 
took  place  in  the  upper  room  or  on  the  way — a 
question  of  no  great  importance.  The  hour  of 
going  out  to  the  garden  cannot  be  exactly 
known.  The  time  of  ending  the  Paschal 
meal  was  usually  not  far  from  midnight,  and 
probably  in  this  case  it  was  at  least  not  later 
than  that ;  more  likely  it  was  earlier. 

33.  A  place  which  was  named  Geth- 
semane. The  spot  is  assigned  bj^  all  the  evan- 
gelists to  the  slope  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  east- 
ward from  the  city.  Matthew  and  Mark  give 
the  name  ;  John  alone  calls  it  a  garden.  Luke 
intimates,  and  John  expressly  asserts,  that  it 
was  a  frequent  resort  of  Jesus,  where  he  was 
often  accompanied  by  his  disciples.  The  name 
"garden"  denotes  an  enclosed  jjlace,  and  is 
sometimes  applied  to  what  we  would  call  an 
orchard.  The  traditional  site  of  Gethsemane 
is  a  little  way  up  the  slope  of  the  Mount  of 
Olives ;  it  contains  eight  venerable  olive  trees, 
but,  venerable  as  these  are,  they  are  probably 
of  later  date  than  the  time  of  our  Lord,  for  Jo- 
sephus  asserts  tliat  in  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  all 
trees  about  the  city  were  cut  down  and  the 
Mount  of  Olives  was  used  as  a  camp  (  Wars,  5. 
2.  3).  It  was  probably  even  then  an  olive- 
garden,  however,  the  name  "Gethsemane" 
("oil-press")  bearing  testimony  to  the  uses  to 
which  the  place  was  put.  The  traditional  site 
cannot  be  proved  to  be  the  true  one,  though  the 
tradition  is  ancient ;  but  it  is  quite  certainly 
near  to  the  true  one,  to  say  the  least. — Arrived 
at  the  place,  he  at  once  separated  himself  from 
the  most  of  his  company,  saying  to  eight  of 
the  eleven,  Sit  ye  here,  while  I  shall  pray, 
and  adding,  according  to  Luke,  the  counsel, 
"  Pray  that  ye  enter  not  into  temptation,"  thus 
leaving  them  to  pray  while  he  also  went  to 
prayer. 


Ch.  XIV.] 


MARK. 


215 


33  And  he  taketh  with  him  Peter  and  James  and 
John,  and  began  to  be  sore  amazed,  and  to  be  very 
heavy  ; 

31  And  saitli  unto  them,  My  soul  is  exceeding  sor- 
rowful unto  death  :  tarry  ye  here,  and  watch. 


33  here,  while  I  pray.    And  he  taketh  with  him  Peter 
and  James    and   John,   and    began    to    be   greatly 

34  amazed,  and    sore    troubled.     And  he  saith  unto 
them,  My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful  even  unto 


a  John  \i  :  27. 


33,  34.  Peter   and  James   and   John. 

Now,  as  before,  the  chosen  companions.  (See 
Mark  5:37;  9:2.)  The  Ma.ster's  knowledge 
of  tlie  certainty  of  Peter's  fall  did  not  lead  hini 
to  chanfje  the  choice  and  leave  Peter  behind. 
Indeed,  was  there  not  a  certain  tenderness  to- 
ward Peter  in  thus  keeping  him  near,  as  if  he 
would  pnjtect  him  as  much  as  po.ssible?  Yet, 
besides,  who  was  there  among  the  twelve  on 
whom  he  could  more  rely?  His  motive  in  hav- 
ing them  near  him  was  the  desire  of  companion- 
ship— not  of  immediate  companionship,  yet  he 


the  order  of  a  climax.  Beyond  the  feeling  of 
amazement,  he  began  to  be  in  deep  and  terrible 
anguish. — My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful 
unto  death.  Unto,  expre-ssive  of  degree: 
"This  is  an  agony  as  of  death;  nay,  this 
is  an  agony  that  human  life  cannot  long 
endure.  If  it  continues,  I  shall  die."  Remem- 
ber that  this  was  no  loose,  popular  speech,  ex- 
aggerated and  only  half  true,  such  as  we  often 
use  :  he  was  the  Truth. — Observe  carefully,  too, 
that  in  this  agony  there  is  absolutely  nothing 
physical.    It  was  his  soul  that  was  sorrow- 


G.\RDEN   OF   GETIISEMANE. 


would  not  be  utterly  alone;  he  would  have 
friends  at  hand,  though  they  might  not  be  in 
sight.  It  was  the  true  human  impulse :  his 
agony  was  coming,  and  alone  he  must  meet  it ; 
yet  whfjlly  alone  who  could  bear  to  be  ? — Two 
words  describe  the  feelinsj  that  was  coming 
upon  him,  sore  amazed,  and  very  heavy. 
The  first  tells  not  only  of  amazement,  but  even 
of  stupefaction  from  amazement,  as  if  an  utterly 
unwonted  feeling  was  taking  possession  of  his 
soul,  and  he  knew  not  what  to  make  of  it;  the 
entrance  upon  a  new  stage  of  experience  was 
overcoming  him.  The  second  tells  of  sore 
trouble,  anguish  of  spirit ;  it  is  a  stronger  and 
sharper  word  than  the  first,  and  follows  it  in 


ful ;  no  bodily  inflictions  had  anything  to  do 
with  it.  This  was  altogether  an  inward  grief,  a 
struggle  of  the  spirit. — The  physical  sufferings 
of  our  Lord,  as  they  were  not  the  first  occasion 
of  his  anguish,  so  were  never  the  chief  source 
of  his  pain.  The  true  understanding  of  his 
agony  has  been  kept  away  from  many  minds 
by  a  too  exclusive  attention  to  the  physical 
part.  Physical  suffering  is  more  easily  under- 
stood than  spiritual,  yet  a  look  at  the  cross 
merely  in  its  physical  aspects  gives  us  no  idea 
whatever  of  its  true  meaning. — Becau.'^e  of  this 
agony  coming  upon  him  he  said  to  the  three, 
tarry  ye  here,  and  watch.  Matthew, 
"  watch    with    me."      To    watch    is    to    keep 


216 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


35  And  he  went  forward  a  little,  and  fell  on  the 
ground,  and  prayed"  that,  if  it  were  possible,  the 
hour  might  pass  from  him. 

3ti  And  he  said,*  Abba,  Father,  all  things  nre  possible 
unto  thee  ;  take  away  this  cup  from  me :  nevertheless," 
not  what  I  will,  but  what  thou  wilt. 


35  death :  abide  ye  here,  and  watch.  And  he  went 
forward  a  little,  and  fell  on  the  ground,  and  prayed 
that,  if  it  were  possible,  the  hour  might  pass  away 

36  from  him.  And  he  said,  Abl)a,  1-allier,  all  things 
are  possible  unto  thee ;  remove  this  cup  from  me : 


a  Heb.  5:7 h  Kom.  8  :  15  ;  Gal.  4:6 c  Pa.  40:8;  John  4  :  34  ;  5  :  30  ;  6  :  38,  39  ;  18  :  11  ;  Phil.  2  :  8. 


awake,  to  be  vigilant;  he  would  have  friends 
near,  even  though  imperfect  friends,  and  he 
would  have  them  awake,  not  lost  to  him  in 
unconsciousness.  How  touching  an  appeal ! 
He  had  chosen  them,  taught  them,  guarded 
them,  prayed  for  them ;  lie  had  just  spoken  to 
them  (John  14-16)  in  the  tone  of  an  infinite  calm- 
ness concerning  the  coming  trouble  ;  but  when 
had  he  leaned  on  them  thus,  and  cast  himself 
on  their  thoughtfulness  and  fidelity  ?  It  was  a 
new  form  for  the  relation  of  Master  and  dis- 
ciple, and  so  to  be  trusted  with  their  Master's 
welfare  ought  to  have  made  them  watchful. 

35.  He  went  forward  a  little.  By  him- 
self, perhaps  farther  into  the  shade. — There  he 
fell  on  the  ground.  Luke,  "kneeled;"  Mat- 
thew, "fell  on  his  face."  No  doubt  it  was 
full  prostration. — His  prayer  was  that,  if  it 
were  possible^  the  hour  might  pass  from 
him.  It  was  the  hour,  with  its  untold  hor- 
rors for  his  soul,  that  so  oppressed  him,  and  he 
pleaded  that  if  he  could  possibly  be  spared  this 
experience,  the  relief  might  come. — What  was 
this  agony,  this  sorrow  unto  death  ?  It  will 
never  be  fully  explained,  and  we  must  not 
expect  to  understand  it  altogether.  But  some 
elements  were  certainly  in  it:  (1)  An  incom- 
parable sense  of  the  horribleness  of  sin — such 
a  sense  of  its  abominablencss  and  of  its  infi- 
nitely fearful  issues  as  no  sinner  ever  had,  and 
as  no  lost  soul,  even,  can  ever  have;  such  a 
sense  of  the  horribleness  of  sin  as  none  but  a 
holy  being  can  ever  entertain;  a  sense,  too, 
penetrated  by  an  incomparable  sympathy  with 
the  beings  whom  sin  has  ruined,  and  rendered 
terrible  and  poignant  by  the  intensity  of  his 
love  for  man.  Such  a  sense  of  the  horrible- 
ness of  sin  was  always  with  him,  but  the 
hour  brought  it  in  fresh  intensity,  because 
now  was  coming  the  supreme  manifestation 
of  the  character  and  work  of  sin.  Now  was 
the  manifested  God  to  be  utterly  rejected ;  now 
was  the  incarnate  Word  to  be  spitefully  mur- 
dered. (2)  The  personal  shrinking  of  holy  love 
from  impending  rejection  and  outrage.  This 
rejection  was  to  take  place  in  his  person ;  it 
was  the  rejection  of  God,  of  God's  own  cha- 
racter, of  God's  highest  work  and  manifestation 
of  himself  If  human  love  cannot  find  itself 
rejected  and  insulted  without  pain,  how  can 


divine — the  more,  since  the  divine  love  is  in- 
finitely unselfish,  and  had  for  its  object  the 
salvation  of  those  who  were  now  rejecting  it? 
Included  in  the  agony  was  the  inconceivably 
painful  recoil  of  infinitely  tender  love  from 
murderous  outrage  at  the  hands  of  those  whom 
it  would  save.  (3)  All  this  to  be  experienced 
by  One  who  was  man  as  well  as  God,  and  by 
whom  every  experience  must  be  realized  and 
sinlessly  accepted  in  his  human  nature.  All 
this,  and  whatever  else  may  have  been  includ- 
ed in  the  agony,  must  be  humanly  endured; 
and  nothing  in  his  humanity  must  rebel  or 
fail  to  fill  its  place  in  execution  of  the  divine 
purpose.  (4)  As  minor  elements,  but  not  less 
real,  the  shrinking  of  full,  fresh,  healthy  hu- 
man life  from  death ;  the  honorable  shrinking 
of  human  purity,  personal  dignity,  perfect  self- 
respect,  from  unmerited  disgrace;  the  intol- 
erableness  of  the  seeming  irony  of  events,  in 
that  such  a  life  should  be  the  one  to  have  such 
an  ending. — That  the  relation  of  his  soul  to  his 
Father  and  of  his  Father  to  him  was  that  of 
perfect  amity  and  confidence  we  have  proof  in 
the  filial  tone  of  his  prayer;  in  the  assertion 
recorded  in  John  16  :  32  concerning  this  very 
time :  "  I  am  not  alone,  because  the  Father  is 
with  me;"  in  his  qitestion  (Matt  -26:53)  asked  in 
the  midst  of  this  time:  "Thinkest  thou  that  I. 
cannot  now  pray  to  my  Father,  and  he  shall 
presently  give  me  more  than  twelve  legions  of 
angels?"  and  in  the  fact  that  he  was  then  per- 
fectly and  amid  utmost  difficulties  doing  his 
Father's  will.  (Note  the  principle  of  John  8  : 
29.  See  also  Heb.  5  :  7  as  to  the  favorable 
hearing  of  his  prayer.) 

36.  Abba.  The  Aramaic  word  foi-  Father, 
the  very  word  that  Jesus  used.  (Compare  Mark's 
citation  of  the  very  words,  chap.  5  :  41 ;  7  :  34 ; 
10  :  51.)  He  alone  gives  Abba  here,  and  Fa- 
ther is  a  translation  of  it.  The  two  equivalent 
words  appear  together  in  Eom  8  :  15  and  Gal. 
4  :  (5.— All  things  are  possible  unto  thee. 
Taking  for  his  own  encouragement  what  he 
had  offered  for  the  encouragement  of  his  friends 
(chap.  10:27).  He  was  made  in  all  things  like 
unto  his  brethren  (Heh.  2:17),  and  showed  us 
what  comforts  to  lay  hold  upon. — Take  away 
this  cup  from  me.  So,  with  request  and  yet 
with  submission,  John  12  :  27.     The  thoughts 


Ch.  XIV.] 


MARK. 


217 


37  And  he  cometh,  and  findeth  them  sleeping,  and 
saith  unto  Peter,  Simon,  sleepest  thou  ?  couldest  not 
thou  watch  one  hour? 

;i.S  Watch  ye,  and  pray,  lest  ye  enter  into  temptation. 
The"  spirit  truly  is  ready,  but  the  flesh  is  weak. 

39  And  again  he  went  away,  and  prayed,  and  spake 
the  same  words. 

40  And  when  he  returned,  he  found  them  asleep 
again,  i  for  their  eyes  were  heavy,)  neither  wist  they 
what  to  answer  him. 


37  howbeit  not  what  I  will,  but  what  thou  wilt.  And 
he  Cometh,  and  tindeth  them  sleeping,  and  saith 
unto  I'eter,  Simon,  sleei)est  thou?  couldest  thou  not 

3S  watch  one  hour?  'Watch  and  pray,  that  ye  enter 
not    into   temptation  :   the  spirit  indeed  is  willing, 

3'J  hut    the  Hesli  is  weak.     And  again  he  went  away, 

4Uand  jjrayed,  saying  the  same  words.  And  again  he 
came,  and  found  them  sleeping,  for  their  eyes  were 
very  heavy  ;   and  they   knew  not  what   to"  answer 


a  Rom.  7  :  18-25  ;  Gal.  5  :  17.- 


-1  Or,  Watch  ye,  and  pray  that  ye  enter  not. 


of  the  Supper  were  still  in  his  mind.  The  cup 
was  the  cup  of  sacrifice,  the  same  tliat  he  had 
been  drinking  before  (chap.  io:38) ;  yet  never  had 
it  been  pressed  to  his  lips  as  now.  Now  to 
drinlc  it  was  to  drain  it  and  to  die.  It  is  not 
exact  to  say  that  his  human  nature  aslced  for 
the  withdrawal  of  the  cup,  but  it  is  true  that  it 
was  because  of  liis  human  nature  tliat  he  aslced 
it.  Now  came  the  greatest  task  that  had  ever 
been  laid  upon  his  human  nature  in  accepting 
and  doing  the  divine  will.  Tlie  greatness  of 
the  task  made  him  pause — not  falter — and  re- 
quest that  if  it  Avere  possible,  it  might  be 
made  less. — Nevertheless,  not  what  I  will, 
but  Avhat  thou  wilt.  Not  expressive  of  a 
conflict  between  tlie  wills,  and  yet  honestly 
expressive  of  a  moment's  delay  in  the  full  ac- 
ceptance by  the  God-man  of  the  will  of  God. 
It  was  not  a  sinful  delay ;  it  only  represented 
his  sense  of  the  inadequateness  of  humanity, 
even  of  perfect  humanity,  to  the  mystery  of 
divine  suffering;  and  it  ended  in  the  request 
that  God's  will  might  be  done.  (Compare 
Heb.  5:7,  8,  which  refers  to  this  struggle.) 
He  had  to  learn  obedience,  tliough  not  to  un- 
learn disobedience,  by  the  things  which  he 
suffered :  that  was  a  lesson  that  even  he  could 
not  learn  except  by  experience.  Learn  it  he 
did,  perfectly;  and  "thy  will  be  done"  is  the 
expression  of  his  success.  The  writer  to  the 
Hebrews  represents  that  it  was  tlirotigli  this 
learning  of  obedience  that  he  became  the  Au- 
thor of  eternal  salvation.  This  was  the  per- 
fecting— nay,  it  was,  in  spirit,  the  offering — of 
the  perfect  sacrifice. 

37,  38.  The  three  were  sleeping,  weary 
and  unthoughtful. — The  remonstrance  is  ad- 
dressed to  Peter,  as  the  most  confident  one  in 
his  professions  of  sufficiency,  hut  it  is  really  for 
them  all.  Couldest  not  thou  watch — or 
"hadst  thou  not  .strength  to  watcii  "  (Matthew, 
"with  me") — one  hour?  Perliaps  we  may 
infer  that  he  had  been  about  an  liour  absent 
from  them,  though  the  conclusion  must  not  be 
too  confidently  drawn.— The  address  is  Simon, 
not  "  Peter." — Watch  ye — /.  e.  awake,  be  wake- 
ful— and  pray,  lest  ye  enter  into  tempta- 


tion. If  you  cannot  keep  awake  ''  with  me," 
there  is  reason  why  you  should  do  it  for  your- 
selves :  trial  is  coming,  and  you  are  not  strong 
enough  to  bear  it  safely.  Therefore  awake  and 
offer  the  needful  prayer.  Here  is  an  illustration 
of  the  occasion  for  his  own  prayer,  "  Lead  us  not 
into  temptation."  The  trial  must  come,  yet  it 
was  right  for  them,  weak  as  they  were,  to  shrink 
from  it  and  to  pray  that  it  might  not  be  too  se- 
vere for  them.  The  call  to  prayer  was  all  the 
more  significant  from  the  fiict  that  he  himself 
was  agonizing  in  prayer.  If  lie  needed  it,  how 
much  more  did  they! — The  spirit  truly  is 
ready — or,  rather,  "the  spirit  indeed  is  will- 
ing"— but  the  flesh  is  weak.  Introduced 
without  a  connective  as  a  remark  of  his  own, 
almost  as  a  meditation.  It  is  a  candid  recogni- 
tion of  the  good  as  well  as  the  evil  in  his  friends : 
their  professions,  though  rash,  were  not  empty. 
"The  spirit  is  willing;  you  do  desire  to  be  trtie 
to  your  Master."  But  the  spirit  and  the  flesh 
are  contrary  to  each  other  (oai  5:  nV  and  tlie  fle.th 
would  triumph  if  the  spirit  was  not  .'jfrengtlien- 
ed  from  above.— The  flesh  is  weak—/,  e.  weak 
for  the  purposes  of  the  spirit.  In  tlie  great  strug- 
gle for  the  spiritual  unification  of  man  the  ef- 
ficient means  is  prayer;  but  it  must  be  the 
prayer  of  the  spiritually  wakeful.  No  other 
will  guard  from  temptation.  (See  Eph.  6  :  18.) 
39,  40.  Yet  lie  was  not  satisfied  with  his 
own  jn-aying.  He  had  said,  not  what  I  will, 
but  what  thou  Avilt,  yet  a|>parciitly  he  liad 
not  said  it  as  lie  would  ;  or,  at  Ica.sf,  he  would  say 
it  again. — Spake  the  same  words.  Not  neces- 
sarily the  same  form,  Imt  the  same  substance 
{ton  auton  lof/on).  Yet  in  Matthew,  wliere  the 
prayer  is  quoted,  there  is  a  visible  progress  from 
the  first.  The  one  is,  "O  my  Father,  if  it  be 
possible,  let  this  cup  pass  away  from  me :  never- 
theles.s,  not  as  I  will,  but  as  thou  wilt;"  the 
other  is,  "  0  my  Father,  if  this  cannot  pa-ss 
away  except  I  drink  it,  thy  will  be  done."  In 
the  latter  there  appears  a  deeper  conviction  that 
the  cup  cannot  pa.ss  away,  and  a  more  uncon- 
ditional acce]itance  of  it  as  the  will  of  God. — 
Observe  that  in  the  repetition  of  prayer  there 
was  no  formalism,  but  only  intensity  of  desire. 


218 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


41  And  he  cometh  the  third  time,  and  saith  unto 
them,  Sleep  on  now,  and  take  yaur  rest :  it  is  enough, 
the"  hour  is  come :  behold,  the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed 
into  the  hands  of  sinners. 

42  r;ise  up,  let  us  go ;  lo,  he  that  betrayeth  me  is  at 
hand. 

43  If  And*  immediately,  while  he  yet  spake,  cometh 
Judas,  one  of  the  twelve,  and  with  him  a  great  mul- 
titude with  swords  and  staves,  from  the  chief  priests'' 
and  the  scribes  and  the  elders. 


41  him.  And  he  cometh  the  third  time,  and  saith  unto 
them.  Sleep  on  now,  and  take  your  rest :  it  is  enough  ; 
the  hour  is  come  ;  behold,  the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed 

42  into  the  hands  of  sinners.  Arise,  let  us  be  going: 
behold,  he  that  betrayeth  me  is  at  hand. 

43  And  straightway,  while  he  yet  spake,  cometh 
Judas,  one  ot  the  twelve,  and  with  him  a  multitude 
with  swords  and  staves,  from  the  chief  priests  and 


a  John  7  :  30;  8    20  ;  13  :  1 h  Matt.  26  :  47  ;  Luke  22  ;  47,  etc.;  John  18  :  3 c  Ps.  3  :  1,  2 d  Ps.  2  :  2. 


He  would  not  lay  down  the  petition  until  he 
had  oflf'ered  it  as  he  would. — Again  he  found 
the  three  asleep.  Apparently  they  had  been 
barely  aroused  when  he  returned  before,  and 
had  again  quickly  sunk  into  sleep. — But  this 
time  they  were  awakened  sufficiently  to  think 
of  excuses,  and  found  that  they  had  none  to 
give  Neither  wist  they  what  to  answer 
him.  The  mention  of  it  is  peculiar  to  Mark — 
a  natural  reminiscence  of  Peter's.  Luke  (who 
tells  the  story  briefly)  attributes  their  sleep  to 
sorrow — i.  e.  to  the  weariness  of  nature  over- 
strained by  grief.  But  this  excuse  did  not  occur 
to  them  at  the  time  as  suitable,  nor  did  any  other. 

41,  42.  Here  Matthew  adds  that  he  went 
away  the  third  time  and  prayed,  using  the 
same  words  (logon)  again.  Not  even  yet  satis- 
fied!— ]Mark  implies  the  third  retirement  for 
prayer  in  mentioning  the  third  return.  That 
they  were  the  third  time  asleep  is  implied, 
though  not  stated.— Sleep  on  noAV,  and  take 
your  rest.  Words  of  sorrowful  irony.  He 
wearily  gives  up  all  expectation  of  companion- 
ship from  them — for  which  he  has  asked  in 
vain — and  will  leave  them  to  their  slumbei-s. 
"  Sleep  on  and  rest  yourselves,  if  that  is  the 
thing  that  you  choose :  I  will  not  disturb  you." 
Meyer  well  remarks:  "Tlie  deepest  sorrow  of 
the  soul,  especially  when  it  is  joined  with  such 
mental  clearness,  has  its  irony ;  and  by  what 
aj)athy  was  Jesus  confronted !"  Does  not  our 
Saviour  here  come  into  a  very  deep  and  sug- 
gestive unity  with  habitual  human  feeling? 

These  words  of  irony  stand  by  themselves. 
After  he  had  spoken  them  there  was  a  pause, 
though  perhaps  of  only  a  moment,  during 
which  Jesus  caught  sight  or  sound  of  the  be- 
trayer and  his  band  approaching.  Then  he 
turned  quickly  to  the  sleeping  disciples  and 
spoke  hurriedly,  in  an  altered  tone.  Now  all 
was  changed,  and  the  time  for  allowing  them 
to  sleep  was  past.  The  remainder  was  uttered 
rapidly,  and  attended  with  whatever  effort  was 
necessary  to  waken  the  sleepers. — It  is  enough 
— i.  e.  enough  of  sleep — the  hour  is  come, 
(he  hour,  long  foreseen,  desired  (i.uke  12 :  so),  yet 
dreaded,  but  now  accepted  in  obedience  to  the 


will  of  God. — Behold,  the  Son  of  man  is 
betrayed  into  the  hands  of  sinners,  or, 

rather,  "  is  delivered  up :"  there  is  no  good  rea- 
son for  departing  from  the  simple  meaning 
here. — Rise  up,  let  us  go — i.  e.  back  to  our 
company,  and  out  to  meet  those  who  are  com- 
ing.— Nor  have  we  far  to  go  or  long  to  wait. 
Lo,  he  that  betrayeth  me — or  giveth  meover 
to  the  wicked  men — is  at  hand.  Even  during 
the  brief  time  of  this  utterance  he  had  been 
coming  nearer,  and  there  was  not  time  for  the 
little  company  to  do  more  than  turn  tlieir 
faces  toward  the  sad  future  before  the  hour 
had  indeed  come. 

43-52.  JESUS  IS  MADE  PRISONER.  Par- 
allels, Matt.  26  :  47-56';  Luke  22  :  47-53 ;  John 
18  :  2-12. — The  approach  of  the  recreant  dis- 
ciple and  his  company  was  manifest  to  them 
all  immediately,  while  he  yet  spake.— 
Again,  as  at  Mark  14  :  10  (and  parallel  pas- 
sages), all  the  reporters  put  the  traitor  on  rec- 
ord as  one  of  the  twelve,  John  alone  varying 
the  phraseology.  This,  to  the  friends  of  Jesus, 
was  the  wonderful  and  horrible  thing  —  that 
one  of  the  twelve  should  do  this  deed. 
John  adds  to  liis  infamy  by  noting  that  his 
familiarity  with  the  habits  of  Jesus  and  his 
company  led  him  to  the  right  place,  at  Geth- 
semane. — The  great  multitude  that  was  with 
him  is  said  by  all  the  four  to  have  come  from 
the  chief  priests.  (See  note  on  verse  1.) 
Their  share  in  the  sending  of  the  crowd  is 
recognized  on  all  sides.  The  remaining  part 
of  the  responsible  body  is  "the  elders  of  the 
people,"  in  Matthew  ;  the  scribes,  and  the 
elders,  in  Mark;  "the  Pharisees"  in  John — 
various  ways  of  describing  the  official  body,  the 
Sanhedrin.  John's  account  of  the  approach- 
ing company  is  more  full  and  exact,  and  he 
tells  us  that  Judas  was  accompanied  by  "  the 
band,"  or  cohort,  of  soldiers,  which  can  be 
nothing  else  than  some  part  of  the  Roman 
garrison  of  Jerusalem.  The  religious  author- 
ities, then,  had  made  requisition  for  a  military 
guard  in  making  this  arrest,  for  fear,  or  pre- 
tended fear,  of  tumult.  Some  Roman  author- 
ity, therefore — Pilate  or  some  one  not  much 


Ch.  XIV.] 


MARK. 


219 


44  And  he  that  betrayed  him  had  given  them  a 
token,  saying,  Whomsoever  I  shall  kiss,"  lliat  same  is 
he:  take  him,  and  lead  liim  away  safely. 

45  And  as  soon  as  he  was  come,  he  goeth  straightway 
to  him,  and  saith,  Master,'  Master ;  and  kissed  him. 

4()  1[  And  they  laid  their  hands  ou  him,  and  took 
him. 

47  And  one  of  them  that  stood  by  drew  a  sword,  and 
smote  a  servant  of  the  high  priest,  and  cut  off  his  ear. 


44  the  .scribes  and  the  elders.  Now  he  that  betrayed 
him  had  given  .them  a  token,  saying.  Whomsoever 
I   shall  kiss,  that  is   he:   take  him,   and   lead    hiiu 

45 av\ay  safely.  And  when  he  was  come,  straightway 
he  came   to   him,   and    saith,    Habbi ;    and   'ki-ssei 

46  him.     And  they  laid  hands  on  him,  and  took  him. 

47  But  a  certain  one  of  them  that  stood  by  drew  his 
sword,  and  siuote  the  -servant  of  the  liigh  priest, 


a  2  Sam.  20  :  0  ;  Ps.  55  :  21  ;  I'rov.  27  :  6....i  Luke  6  :  46.- 


-1  Gr.  kissed  himmuch 2  Gr.  bondservant. 


lower — must  have  known  what  was  in  con- 
templation. The  others,  "  otficers,"  who  are 
mentioned  by  Jolui,  were  probably  Levites  or 
some  other  t)fficer!S  of  the  temple.  This  was  no 
mob ;  both  the  civil  and  the  religious  author- 
ities were  directly  active  in  the  arrest. — The 
soldiers  had  the  swords,  and  the  ofHcers  from 
the  temple  were  armed  with  staves  (plural  of 
"statf")  or  clubs.  The  night  was  lighted  by 
the  moon,  but  in  going  out  into  the  shaded  en- 
closure there  would  be  need  of  lights,  and  John 
says  that  they  were  provided  with  torches  and 
lanterns. — Such  a  company,  military  and  mis- 
cellaneous, armed  and  lighted,  quietly  as  it 
miglit  wish  to  approach,  was  so  considerable 
in  size  and  appointments  that  it  is  not  strange 
that  Jesus  saw  or  heard  it  on  the  way. 

44,  45.  John's  account  of  wliat  follows  is  by 
no  means  a  recapitulation  of  what  appears  in 
the  st(^ry  of  the  synoptists.  He  omits  all  ref- 
erence to  the  kiss  of  Judas,  and  inserts  what 
they  had  omitted — namely,  the  question  of  Je- 
sus, intended  to  shield  his  disciples,  and  the 
temporary  retreat  of  liis  enemies  before  the 
glory  of  liis  presence.  The  most  probable 
place  for  this  seems,  however,  to  be  after  the 
kiss  and  before  the  arrest.  The  kiss  was  a  com- 
mon form  of  salutation  among  the  Jews 
(Luke 7: 45;  Acts20::)7),  and  became  a  sign  of  love 
in  the  Christian  Church  (Rom.  i6 :  i6;  i  Pet.  5, 14,  etc.). 
It  may  have  been  the  usual  salutation  from  the 
disciples  to  their  Master.  The  sign  ajipears,  in 
Matthew,  to  have  been  agreed  upon  just  then, 
as  they  were  drawing  near.  Tlie  verb  in  Mark 
(in  the  perfect  tense)  is  capable  of  another 
sense,  but  the  whole  saying  of  Juda.s  in  verse 
44  is  an  utterance  of  haste  and  agitation,  indi- 
cating that  it  was  Sjjokcn  on  the  spot.  To  say 
take  him,  and  lead  him  away  safely— i.  e. 
securely,  that  he  may  not  escape — was  utterly 
needless,  and  tells  of  the  guilty  man's  excite- 
ment.— Tlie  proposal  of  the  kiss  was  his  own, 
not  theirs.  Was  it  neces.sary  that  such  a  sign 
should  be  used?  Could  they  not  find  him?  It 
seems  a  gratuitous  insult,  and  a  superfluous 
degradation  of  himself  on  the  part  of  Judas.— 
Lead  him  away  safely  is  peculiar  to  Mark; 
it  is  one  of  the  sayings  that  no  inventor  would 


I  ever  think  of  putting  in.  —  The  traitor  was 
'  prompt  and  ready:  he  came  straightway  to 
i  Jesus  with  his  kiss. — Still  in  agitation,  he  gave 
him  a  fervent  kiss.  In  the  proposal  it  was 
I  phileso ;  in  the  act,  katcphilesen,  a  stronger  word. 
He  kissed  him  with  all  signs  of  heartiness;  so 
that  the  emphatic  nature  of  the  kiss  wiu?  noticed. 
— His  words  are,  in  Matthew,  "  Hail,  Rabbi ;"  in 
,  Mark,  simply  Master,  or  "  Rabbi,"  the  rejjeti- 
i  tion  of  the  title  being  unsupported  by  the  best 
authorities.  Bengel  remarks  that  Judas  is 
never  said  to  have  called  Jesus  "  Lord."  Twice 
he  is  said  to  have  called  him  "  Rabbi,"  here  and 
in  Matt.  2G  :  25 ;  and  some  have  inferred  that 
this  cooler  and  more  distant  form  of  address 
was  customary  with  him — an  inference  preca- 
rious, but  possible.  Even  if  it  was  the  colder 
title,  the  union  of  the  title  with  the  kiss  made 
up  an  utterance  of  consummate  hypocrisy.— 
No  answer  of  Jesus  is  recorded  in  Mark,  but 
one  is  given  by  Luke  and  another  by  Matthew. 
Luke,  "Judas,  betrayest  thou  the  Son  of  man 
with  a  kiss?"  Matthew,  "Comrade,"  or  com- 
panion ("friend"  is  a  misleading  word  here), 
"  do  that  for  wliich  thou  hast  come."  So,  cor- 
rectly, in  the  Revision.  One  is  the  most  search- 
ing and  terrible  of  reproaches ;  the  other  is 
companion  to  the  "  What  thou  doest,  do  quick- 
ly," that  sent  Judas  out  from  the  circle  of  the 
disciples.  The  two  are  perfectly  consistent,  and 
no  doubt  both  fell  upon  the  ears  of  the  guilty 
man. — After  the  doul)le  answer,  probal)ly,  comes 
the  wonderful  scene  of  John  18  :  4-8,  ending 
with  the  hint  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples  that  they 
could  help  him  :io  further :  "  If  therefore  ye 
seek  me,  let  these  go  their  way." 

46,  47.  Then  the  arrest  was  made,  and  Je- 
sus was  actually  a  i)risoner.— The  ei)isode  that 
follows  is  one  of  the  most  peculiar  and  touch- 
ing in  the  Gospels.  First,  of  the  smiting  with 
the  sword.  There  were  two  swords  in  the  com- 
pany (Luke  22 :  38),  of  wliich  Pctcr  had  one ;  he  had 
had  it  at  the  Supper  and  during  liis  sleep  in  the 
garden.  Where  he  got  it,  or  with  what  intent, 
we  can  scarcely  guess.  Who  had  the  other? 
Was  it  Simon  the  Zealot?  Perceiving  that  Je- 
sus meant  to  make  no  resistance,  these  two  with 
swords  must  needs  volunteer  their  help  (Luke), 


220 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


48  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  iiuto  them,  Are  ye 
come  out,  as  against  a  thief,  with  swords  and  with 
staves  to  take  me'.' 

49  I  was  daily  with  you  in  the  temple,  teaching,  and 
ye  took  me  not:  but  the  scriptures"  must  be  fulfilled. 

5(1  And'  they  all  forsook  him,  and  fled. 

51  And  there  followed  him  a  certain  young  man, 
having  a  linen  cloth  cast  about  Ins  naked  buay ;  and 
the  young  men  laid  hold  on  him : 

52  And  he  left=  the  linen  cloth,  and  fled  from  them 
naked. 


48  and  struck  off  his  ear.  And  Jesus  answered  and 
said  uulo  them,  Are  ye  come  out,  as  against  a  robber, 

49  with  swords  and  staves  to  seize  me?  I  was  daily 
with  you  in  the  temple  teaching,  and  ye  took  me 
not:   but  (his  is  dune  that  the   scriptures  might  be 

50  fulfilled.    And  they  all  left  him,  and  fled. 

51  And  a  certain  young  man  followed  with  him, 
having  a  linen  cloth  cast  about  him,  over  his  naked 

52  body :  and  they  lay  hold  on  him ;  but  he  left  the 
linen  cloth,  and  fled  naked. 


a  Pa.  22  :  1  ;  Isa.  53  :  3,  etc.;  Luke  24  :  44 b  ver.  27;  Ps.  88  :  8;  Isa.  63  ;  3 c  ch.  13  :  16. 


though  the  unknown  second  one  is  not  recorded 
to  have  struck  a  blow. — One  of  them  that 
stood  by,  unnamed  by  tlie  synoptists,  is  iden- 
tified by  Jolin  as  Peter.  A  feeling  of  valor 
stirred  in  his  heart,  but  yet  again  in  contradic- 
tion to  the  spirit  of  his  Master:  "Minding  the 
things  of  men,  and  not  the  things  of  God  " 
(Mark  8 :  33).  It  was  iio  longer,  "  Lord,  I  am  ready 
to  go  with  thee  both  into  prison  and  to  death  " 
(Luke  22;  33);  now  lie  luust  fccblj'  strike,  to  pre- 
vent his  Lord  from  going  to  death  or  to  prison. 
It  is  another  illustration  of  "  the  spirit  indeed 
is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak  " — an  illustra- 
tion more  significant  than  the  falling  asleep, 
and  approaching  in  significance  the  one  that 
was  yet  to  come. — The  blow  was  ill-directed, 
and  struck  only  the  ear  of  the  man  at  whose 
head  it  was  aimed,  a  servant  —  or  rather 
the  slave  —  of  the  high  priest  —  i.  e.  of 
Caiaphas.  As  the  synoptists  omit  the  name  of 
Peter,  so  they  omit  that  of  this  man  ;  John 
gives  it  as  Malchus. — Here,  very  singularly, 
Mark  drops  the  story,  Matthew  and  John  pro- 
ceed with  our  Lord's  rebuke  to  Peter,  and  only 
Luke  tells  that  he  healed  the  wounded  ear. 
Any  exi)lanation  of  these  facts  is  impossible ; 
one  would  think  all  would  have  recorded  the 
healing.  In  Luke  the  scene  is  very  beautiful, 
the  Lord  saying,  "Suffer  ye  thus  far" — i.e., 
probably,  "  Permit  me  thus  far  the  use  of  my 
hands,"  and  touching  the  ear  with  healing 
power.  Here  is  a  gentle  apology  for  Peter's 
act;  an  astonishing  act  of  submission  to  hi;^ 
captors,  even  asking  them  for  the  use  of  hand.- 
tliat  Iu\d  power  to  heal ;  a  wonderful  display 
of  divine  power  at  the  very  moment  of  his 
self-surrender,  as  if  he  would  show  that  he 
was  not  yielding  from  weakness  or  necessity : 
the  humble  returning  of  his  hands,  neverthe- 
less, to  the  custody  of  his  foes ;  and,  most  won- 
derful of  all,  perliaps,  the  hardihood  of  the  men 
who  could  take  again  the  healing  hands  and 
bind  them  Tjohn  18:12). —  The  rebuke  to  Peter 
contains,  in  John,  the  echo  of  his  recent  prayer: 
"  The  cup  which  my  Father  hath  given  me, 
shall  I  not  drink  it?"  In  Matthew  it  tells  of 
the  hopelessness  of  such  resistance,  asserts  that 


heavenly  legions  would  come  to  his  aid  if  he 
wished  them,  and  declares  that  neither  earthly 
rescue  nor  heavenly  is  to  be  thouglit  of,  since 
this  is  the  counsel  of  God  according  to  the 
Scriptures. 

48-50.  He  submits  to  the  fulfilment  of  the 
Scriptures,  but  it  is  impossible  even  for  him 
not  to  be  indignant  at  the  senseless  violence  of 
wicked  men.  Literally,  "As  against  a  robber 
are  ye  come  out  with  swords  and  clubs  to  take 
me?"  They  had  opportunities  in  the  temple 
every  day,  but  they  must  needs  wait  till  this 
midnight  hour,  and  then  come  out  thus  armed, 
as  if  he  were  a  violent  and  dangerous  character. 
There  is  a  true  shame  in  his  unwillingness  to 
be  treated  as  robbers  are  treated ;  to  be  "  num- 
bered with  transgressors"  cut  him  to  the  heart. 
But  he  fell  back  uj)on  his  former  conviction : 
the  Scriptures  must  be  fulfilled;  and  "all  this" 
(Matthew)  was  done,  in  order  that  they  might 
be  fulfilled — not  merely  that  minute  predictions 
might  have  something  to  corresj)ond  to  them, 
but,  more  broadly,  that  he  might  endure  and 
accomplish  what  the  Scriptures  had  foretold. 
According  to  Luke,  he  ended  with  "but  tliis  is 
your  hour  " — the  hour  assigned  to  you  by  God's 
counsel — "and  (this  power  which  is  gathering 
in  upon  me  is)  the  power  of  darkness,"  of  spir- 
itual opposition  to  spiritual  light. — The  disci- 
ples, permitted  by  him  to  "go  their  way"  (John 
18:8),  now  all  forsook  him,  and  fled.  But 
forsook  is  too  strong  a  word  for  the  original ; 
"left"  is  better. — Nothing  has  been  said  of  re- 
union with  the  eight  whom  he  had  left  (verse  32), 
but  undoulitedly  the  whole  company  had  come 
together  when  the  intruders  came. 

51,52.  Peculiar  to  Mark;  manifestly,  the 
reminiscence  of  an  eye-witness.  No  inventor 
would  have  left  a  story  so  incomplete.  This 
young  man  followed  Jesus ;  literally,  in  the 
best  text,  "followed  with  him" — i.  e.  he  was  a 
companion  with  him  in  the  garden ;  he  was 
present  there,  and  was  no  stranger.  Yet  he  had 
not  been  with  Jesus  and  the  others  at  the  Sup- 
per, for  then  he  would  have  been  clothed. — 
The  linen  cloth  (.^Indon)  in  which  he  was 
wrapped  was  the  garment  of  the  night.     The 


I 


Ch.  XIV.] 


MARK. 


221 


word,  supposed  to  be  akin  to  ind,  Indidii,  first 
denoted  a  peculiar  kind  of  delicate  cloth  ;  after- 
ward it  meant  linen.  In  the  New  Testament  it 
is  used,  besides  this  i)lacc,  only  of  the  cloth  in 
wliith  the  body  of  Jesus  was  wrapped  for  burial. 
Sleeping  near  and  hearing  what  events  were  in 
progress,  this  young  man  had  risen  from  his 
bed  and  joined  Jesus  in  the  garden  as  he  WJis. — 
It  is  added  that  they  laid  hold  of  him.  The 
young  men  is  to  be  omitted.  Either  the  at- 
tempt to  take  him  was  due  to  a  sudden  impulse 
of  mischief  in  some  of  the  crowd  upon  seeing  a 
man  in  so  unwonted  a  guise,  or  he  was  some 
one  whom  the  enemies  of  Jesus  were  anxious 
to  secure  even  when  they  would  let  his  dis- 
ciples go.  In  the  passage  there  is  absolutely  no 
hint  as  to  who  he  was,  and  no  help  to  conjec- 
ture. That  he  was  Mark  himself  is  purely  a 
guess,  and  not  a  very  probable  one.  Those 
who  identify  the  rich  young  ruler  (Mark  10  : 
17 ;  see  note  there)  with  Lazarus  are  inclined 
to  think  that  he  here  again  appears.  There  is 
considerable  overstraining  in  some  of  the  rea- 
sons as  given  in  Plumptre's  note;  but  a  few 
reas<nis  seem  worth  mentioning.  He  was  a 
young  man,  again;  if  the  otficers  were  espe- 
cially anxious  to  take  liim,  the  fact  corresponds 
with  the  testimony  of  John  12  :  10,  that  the 
Jews  were  plotting  to  kill  Lazarus  as  well  as 
Je-sus,  and  when  they  were  taking  Jesus  they 
would  certainly  be  sure  to  seize  upon  Lazarus 
if  he  was  at  hand;  and  this  incidental  and 
mysterious  manner  of  mentioning  the  young 
nuu!  is  in  perfect  accord  with  the  practice  of 
the  synoptists  in  syjcaking  of  the  family  at 
Bethany.  Of  course  these  considerations  do 
not  amount  to  proof,  l)ut  they  perhaps  open 
the  way  for  a  legitimate  conjecture.  The  iden- 
tification would  be  an  extremely  interesting 
one  if  it  were  true,  for  it  would  wonderfully 
illustrate  the  power  of  him  to  whom  "  all  things 
are  possible"  (chap.  10:27),  the  unwilling  man 
liaving  been  brought  liy  his  mighty  working  to 
bo  more  faithful  than  the  very  ajiostles. — The 
young  man  was  determined  not  to  be  taken, 
and  escaped  by  leaving  his  only  garment  in  the 
liands  of  his  [)ursuei-s.  Lazarus  would  know 
that  tai)ture  meant  certain  deatJi. 

In  this  section  we  take  leave  of  Judas,  who 
appears  no  more  in  Mark's  Gospel.  Jesus  fore- 
knew his  treason  (John  b:  64, 70, 71),  and  yet  chosi 
him  to  be  an  apostle.  It  lias  often  been 
objected  to  our  Saviour  that  in  this  treatment 
of  Judivs  there  was  cruel  irony ;  j^et  Jesus^ 
acted  in  good  faith,  knowing  the  better  possi- 
bilities of  Judas,  as  well  as  his  evil  heart. 
When  a  man  of  high  possibilities  and  fearful 


dangers  appeared  among  his  disciples,  it  would 
be  the  impulse  of  the  Saviour  to  have  the  man 
near  himself  for  the  man's  own  sake.  Thus, 
though  the  personal  contact  with  Christ  made 
his  privileges  specaal,  his  case  was  not  really 
exceptional.  "  Judas  was  ti-eated,"  as  Dr.  Hovey 
has  said,  "  very  much  as  every  bad  man  is 
treated  who  is  enabled,  in  the  providence  of 
God,  to  have  great  light  and  to  wield  great  in- 
fluence for  a  time  in  a  religious  society."  (See 
a  pretty  full  discussion  of  this  matter  in  Smith's 
Dictionnrij  of  the  Bihic,  Am.  Ed.,  art.  "  Judas  Is- 
cariot.")  But  for  unwritten  reasons  of  which 
the  chief  external  reason  doubtless  was  that 
Jesus  proved  not  to  be  such  a  Messiah  as  he  was 
thinking  of — he  became  dissatisfied  and  rebel- 
lious in  heart;  and  then  the  very  association 
with  Jesus  that  might  have  been  to  liim  a 
training  in  all  holiness  and  heavenliness  of 
mind  became  the  means  of  deeper  misunder- 
standing, dissatisfaction,  and  hatred.  The  pro- 
cess was  a  natural  one  :  "  From  him  that  hath 
not  shall  be  taken  away  even  that  which  he 
hath."  When  once  the  real  beauty  of  Jesus 
was  no  beauty  to  his  heart,  helps  became  inju- 
rious to  him  and  light  itself  deepened  his  dark- 
ness. He  is  a  fearful  example  of  the  darker 
possibilities  that  may  dwell  in  men  who  are 
capable  of  great  good  (Matt  6: 22  24). 

53-65.  JESUS  IS  EXAMIXED  BY  GAIA- 
PHAS  AND  THE  SANHEDRIN,  AND  AD- 
JUDGED WORTHY  OF  DEATH;  AFTER 
WHICH  HE  IS  MOCKED  IN  THE  PRES- 
ENCE OF  HIS  JUDGES.  Parallels,  Matt.  26  : 
57-68 ;  Luke  22  :  54,  55,  63-65. 

Jesus  was  subjected  to  three  examinations  be- 
fore Jewish  authorities :  before  Annas  (John  is :  is), 
before  Caiaphas  and  the  informal  meeting  of  the 
Sanhedrin  (in  the  i)resent  section,  Matthew  and 
Mark),  and  before  the  Sanhedrin  formally  as- 
semliled  (i-uke  22: 66-71).  Of  these,  ^[atthew  and 
Mark  narrate  the  second  and  allude  to  the  third 

(Matt.  27:  1  ;  Mark  15:l)  ;    whilc    Lukc  alludcS    tO   the 

second  (i.iikc22:54)  and  narrates  the  third  (22:66-71). 
John,  writing  later,  and  having  special  familiar- 
ity with  the  first,  narrates  that,  and  alludes  to 
the  second  (.lohnis:  24).  Thus  the  story  is  com- 
pleted only  by  a  careful  comiiarison  of  all  the 
records.  Of  tliese  three  examinations  Farrar 
says  {Life  of  ChrLH,  2.  327,  328) :  "The  first  was 
the  practical,  the  second  the  potential,  the  third 
the  actual  and  formal,  decision  that  sentence  of 
death  should  be  passed  judicially  upon  him. 
Each  of  the  three  trials  might,  from  a  dilferent 
point  of  view,  have  been  regarded  as  the  most 
fatal  and  important  of  the  three.  That  of  An- 
nas was  the  authoritative  prxjudicium ;  that  of 


222 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


53  ^  And"  they  led  Jesus  away  to  the  high  priest: 
and  with  him  were  assembled  all  the  chief  priests  and 
the  elders  and  the  scribes. 

54  And  I'eter  followed  him  afar  off,  even  into  the 
palace  of  the  high  priest:  and  he  sat  with  the  servants, 
and  warmed  himself  at  the  tire. 

5.5  And  the  chief  priests  and  all  the  council  sought 
for  witness  against  Jesus  to  put  him  to  death;  and 
found  none. 

5(>  For*  many  bare  false  witness  against  him,  but 
their  witness  agreed  not  together. 


53  And  they  led  Jesus  away  to  the  high  priest:  and 
there  come  together  with  him  all  the  chief  priests 

54  and  the  elders  and  the  scribe.s.    And  I'eter  had  fol- 
j       lowed  him  afar  off,  even  within,  into  the  court  of 

I       the  high  priest ;  and  he  was  sitting  with  the  officers, 

55  and  warming  himself  in  the  light  aj'  the  fire.  Isow 
the  chief  priests  and  the  whole  council  sought  wit- 
ness against  Jesus  to  put  him  to  death  ;  and  found  it 

56  not.    For  many  bare  false  witness  against  him,  and 


jMatt.  26  :  57,  etc.;  Luke  22  :  54,  etc. ;  John  18  :  13,  etc 6  Ps.  35  :  11. 


Caiaphas,  the  real  determination ;  that  of  the 
Sanliedrin  at  daybreak,  the  final  ratification." 
— The  reports  are  all  more  or  less  fragmentary, 
and  traiLsactions  that  were  simultaneous  are  de- 
tailed, now  in  one  order,  and  now  in  another. 
The  narratives  of  the  trial  have  been  regarded 
by  many  as  a  fruitful  field  for  the  sceptic  who 
delights  in  discrepancies.  On  a  superficial  study 
discrepancies  do  appear;  but  the  result  of  the 
closer  investigations  of  recent  times  has  been 
that  a  clear  and  consistent  history  thoroughly 
accordant  with  Jewi.'^h  customs  comes  to  light. 
53.  The  high  priest  here  is  Caiaphas,  who 
was  actually  in  office.  Annas  had  been  high 
priest,  though  not  since  about  seven  years  ear- 
lier. He  was  a  man  of  high  standing,  constant- 
ly consulted  in  the  affairs  of  the  Jews ;  and  to 
him  Jesus  had  already  been  led,  in  the  hope  of 
eliciting  something  in  a  preliminary  examina- 
tion that  might  serve  as  material  for  use  in  a 
more  formal  trial.  Accordant  with  the  view 
of  the  three  trials  that  is  here  maintained  is 
the  revised  version  of  John  18  :  24:  "Annas 
therefore  sent  him  bound"  (in  place  of  "now 
Annas  had  sent  him  bound")  "  unto  Caiaphas 
the  high  priest."  This  verse,  thus  correctly 
translated,  assigns  the  events  of  the  trial  tliat 
precede  it,  in  John,  to  the  house  of  Annas. 
That  verse  is  parallel  to  the  beginning  of  this 
ver.se  53. — If  the  words  with  him  are  genuine, 
of  which  there  is  some  doubt,  they  refer  to 
Jesus,  a.s  in  the  Revision :  "  There  come  to- 
gether with  him  " — i.  e.  with  Je.sus,  to  the  high 
priest — "  all  the  chief  priests  and  the  elders  and 
the  scribes."  This  is  an  enumeration  of  tlie 
classes  represented  in  the  Sanliedrin.  But  this 
cannot  have  been  a  formal  meeting  of  that  body, 
for  it  was  illegal  to  hold  a  meeting  for  the  trial 
of  capital  cases  by  night.  (Compare  the  lan- 
guage of  Luke  22  :  66  about  the  formal  meeting 
that  took  place  at  the  first  available  moment.) 
Tlie  recorded  non-consent  of  Joseph  of  Arima- 
thffia  to  the  condemnation  (Luke  23: 51),  and  the 
evident  fact  that  Nicodemus  also  had  taken  no 
part  in  the  proceedings,  make  it  probable  tliat 
this  was  a  packed  meeting  arranged  to  suit  the 
purpose  of  prejudgment. 


54.  Peter,  whose  last  appearance  was  in  ill- 
timed  violence,  appears  again,  following  afar 
amid  the  crowd  that  moves  after  the  officers 
and  their  prisoner;  or  perhaps  the  word  may 
signify  tliat  he  was  at  the  rear  of  the  throng. 
John  was  his  companion  (John  is :  15) ;  so  Peter 
must  not  be  blamed,  as  if  this  far-off  following 
were  almost  a  part  of  his  denial.  Xo  disciple 
was  with  Jesus  then  ;  perhaps  none  was  nearer 
than  Peter  and  John :  he  was  not  anxious  to 
have  them  near  him. — The  palace  of  the  high 
priest  was  probably  within  easy  distance  of  the 
temple  :  its  exact  site  is  unknown.  It  is  an  in- 
ference from  the  language  of  John  that  Annas 
may  have  had  his  home  with  Caiaphas,  his  son- 
in-law,  in  some  part  of  the  high  priest's  palace. 
The  inference  is  a  probable  one ;  it  is  supjjorted 
by  the  fact  that  in  the  "sending"  from  Annas, 
to  Caiaphas  there  appears  to  have  been  no 
change  of  place,  Peter  and  the  scene  of  liis 
denials  being  all  the  time  at  hand. — Peter  sat 
Avith  the  servants — or,  rather,  "with  the  of- 
ficers"— and  warmed  himself.  Luke  and 
John  mention  the  kindling  of  the  fire;  Luke 
says  that  it  was  in  tlie  midst  of  the  hall,  or, 
rather,  of  the  court  around  which  the  house 
was  built,  and  John  mentions  the  "cold"  that 
occasioned  it,  the  chill  of  a  night  in  spring. 
Peter  had  been  sleeping  on  the  ground  in  the 
chilly  night. — Matthew  says  that  Peter  sat  there 
"to  see  the  end,"  waiting  in  such  company  and 
comfort  as  he  could  find.  Mark  alone  adds  the 
touch,  Avarmed  himself  at  the  fire,  or,  lit- 
erally, "in  tlie  light"  {pros  to jAos) — /.  c.  in  the 
light  of  the  fire.  Was  not  this  a  remembrance 
of  Peter  himself?  and  did  he  not  remember  it 
because  that  same  glow  of  the  firelight  was  the 
means  of  his  being  recognized  ?  He  remember- 
ed tlie  light  on  the  circle  of  faces  and  the  con- 
sequence of  its  shining  upon  him,  and  gave 
Mark  the  expressive  phrase,  "  warming  hini- 
self  in  the  firelight." 

55,  56.  The  judges  were  taking  testimony 
in  a  capital  case,  althougli  the  meeting  was  in- 
formal and  the  trying  of  such  a  case  wa.s  il- 
legal. They  were  not  only  taking  testimony,  but 
seeking  it ;  and  seeking  not  only  testimony,  but 


Ch.  XIV.] 


MARK. 


223 


57  And  there  arose  certain,  and  bare  false  witness 
against  hiai,  saying, 

.58  We  iieard  liiiii  say,  I  will  destroy"  this  temple 
that  is  niaile  with  liands,  and  within  three  days  I  will 
build  another  made  without  hands. 

oil  Hut  neither  so  did  their  witness  agree  together. 

fill  And'  the  high  priest  stood  up  in  the  midst,  and 
asked  Jesus,  saying,  Answerest  thou  nothing?  What 
U  it  wliick  these  witness  against  thee? 


57  their  witness  agreed  not  together.  And  there  stood 
up  certain,  and  hare  lalse  witness  against  him,  say- 

58ing,  We  heard  him  say,  I  will  destroy  this  'temple 
that  is  made  with  hands,  and  in  three  days  1  will 

59  build  another  made  without  hands.    And  not  even 

6U  so  did  their  witness  agree  together  And  the  high 
priest  stood  up  in  the  midst,  and  asked  Jesus,  say- 
ing, Answerest  thou  nothing?    what  is  it  which 


ich.  lb  :  29;  John  2  :  19 I  Matt.  '26  :  62,  etc. 1  Or,  tanctuary 


false  te.stimony,  with  tlie  definite  purpose  of 
conviction— a  cruel  jxirodj^  upon  justice.  The 
statute-book  of  the  Sanhedrin  wa.s  the  law  of 
Moses,  and  tliat  law  reciuired  at  least  two  wit- 
nesses in  a  case  of  life  and  death  (neut.  i7:6;  i9:i5). 
The  council  was  making  a  pretence  of  conform- 
ity to  law  and  to  the  demands  of  justice — at 
least,  in  some  details. — But  they  found  nothing 
satisfactory — a  surprising  thing.  One  would 
think  they  needed  to  find  no  trouble  in  getting 
testimony  if  they  were  satisfied  with  false  testi- 
mony. But  it  seems  to  have  been  necessary 
that  the  witnesses  should  agree;  from  which  it 
looks  probable  that  they  were  examined  sep- 
arately. Fragments  of  evidence  that  would 
suit  them  would  be  easily  enough  obtained, 
but  they  must  have  agreement ;  and  in  this 
court  it  must  be  evidence  that  had  at  least  some 
shadow  of  relevancy  to  the  law  of  Moses  and 
the  sacred  things. — The  change  of  persecutors 
from  Pharisees  to  chief  priests  had  something 
to  do  with  the  dilficulty  in  securing  evidence. 
The  case  was  now  in  the  hands  of  the  author- 
ities in  Jerusalem,  and  the  most  of  our  Lord's 
utterances,  and  all  his  recent  ones,  up  to  within 
a  few  days,  had  been  made  in  Galilee  or  Peraca. 
Moreover,  the  range  of  available  evidence  was 
limited  by  the  jealousies  between  the  chief 
priests,  who  were  now  managing  the  case,  and 
the  Pharisees.  Many  of  the  utterances  of  Jesus 
against  (he  Pharisees  were  but  too  agreeable  to 
the  men  of  the  priestly  party ;  while  any  utter- 
ances that  he  had  made  against  the  priests  might 
be  only  too  satisfactory  as  evidence  to  the  Phar- 
isaic minority  that  was  present. — The  existing 
haste  was  also  an  element  in  the  case :  they 
could  not  wait  to  send  for  witnesses,  but  were 
obliged  to  do  what  they  could  with  such  as 
were  at  hand. 

57-59.  Two  witnesses  "at  the  last"  (Mat- 
thew) in  whose  story  there  was  more  promise 
— a  charge  of  blasphemy  against  the  temple,  a 
most  serious  charge,  especially  in  the  sight  of 
this  priestly  party.  Compare  the  accusation 
against  Stephen  (Acts  b:  is,  n).  Here  the  charge 
of  disrespect  toward  the  tcmjile  was  coupled 
with  that  of  claiming  supernatural  power, 
either  divine  or  magical,  power  to  build— in 


place  of  the  old — another  made   without 

hands.  Misunderstanding  or  dim  remem- 
brance or  wilful  perversion  of  his  language  at 
the  earliest  passover  of  his  ministry  (john2:i9). 
The  later  cleansing  of  the  temple,  so  horril)le 
to  the  priestly  party,  had  doubtless  brought 
this  language  to  mind  again;  and  that  w(jrk 
would  render  such  an  accusation  as  this  more 
agreeable  to  them  than  almost  any  other  could 
be.  It  is  a  striking  fact  that  John,  who  records 
the  early  saying,  makes  no  allusion  to  the 
charge,  while  Matthew  and  Mark,  who  record 
the  accusation,  have  no  allusion  to  the  early 
saying — a  cross-reference  of  some  value. — But 
the  testimony  claimed  to  be  that  of  ear-wit- 
nesses: We  heard  him  say.  And  then,  ap- 
parently, they  did  not  quote  alike.  It  is  scarcely 
probable  that  the  differences  between  the  testi- 
mony, as  given  by  Matthew  and  by  Mark,  rep- 
resent the  differences  between  the  two  wit- 
nesses, one  alleging  that  he  said  "I  can 
destroy,"  and  the  other  that  he  said  I  will 
destroy;  and  one  in.serting,  while  the  other 
omitted,  made  with  hands  and  made  with- 
out hands.  Such  differences,  insisted  upon, 
might  invalidate  testimony  exactly  as  this  was 
invalidated;  but  these  differences  are  too  much 
in  the  manner  of  the  evangelists  to  be  relied 
upon  as  intended  for  illustrative  quotations. — 
The  word  for  temple  here,  as  in  John  2  :  19,  is 
tlie  word  that  denotes  the  inner  and  more  sacred 
part,  the  sanctuary,  the  "  holy  place."— Both 
here  and  at  verse  5G  it  is  ^lark  alone  wlio  points 
out  that  the  witnesses  were  discordant.  He 
leaves  the  impre.ssion,  though  he  does  not 
expressly  say,  that  the  council  was  aware  of 
the  discordance  and  insutfiL-iency  of  the  evi- 
dence. 

60,  61.  The  effort  to  find  evidence  must 
have  been  considerably  prolonged ;  probably 
there  was  search  made  through  the  whole  of 
the  throng  that  was  present  for  some  one  whose 
testimony  would  avail.  Witness  after  witness 
tried  and  failed,  and  Jesus  was  silent.  He  had 
no  need  to  speak  :  his  enemies  were  refuting 
themselves.  But  his  silence  was  majestic,  and 
his  calmness  contra.^ted  with  their  agitation,  tc 
their  great  discomfiture.    This  silence  was  more 


224 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


61  But  he"  held  his  peace,  and  answered  nothing. 
Again  the  high  priest  asked  him,  and  said  unto  liim. 
Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  hon  of  tlie  Blessed? 

62  And  Jesus  said,  1  am  :  and  ye*  shall  see  the  Son 
of  man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  com- 
ing in  the  clouds  of  heaven. 

6:i  Then  the  high  priest  rent<^  his  clothes,  and  saith, 
What  need  we  any  further  witnesses? 


61  these  witness  against  thee?  But  he  held  his  peace, 
and  answered  nothing.  Again  the  high  priest 
asked  him,  and  saith  unto  him.  Art  thou  the  Christ, 

62  the  .Son  of  the  Blessed?  And  Jesus  said,  I  am:  and 
ye  shall  see  the  !Son  of  man  sitting  at  the  right  hand 
of  power,  and  coming  with  the   clouds  of  heaven. 

63  And  the   high  priest  rent  his  clothes,  and   saith, 


a  Psi.  39 : 9 ;  laa.  S3  :  7 ;  1  Pet.  2  :  23 b  Dan.  7:13;  Malt.  24 :  30 ;  26  :  61 :  Luke  ! 


Rev.  1:7 c  Isa.  37  :  I. 


powerful  than  speech  to  baffle  and  enrage  them. 
— If  the  place  was  the  ordinary  place  of  meet- 
ing, the  Sanhedrin  sat  in  a  semicircle,  in  the 
midst  of  which  the  accused  was  placed.     Out 
to  Jesus,  in  the  midst,  now  came  Caiaphas  with 
his  question.     Some  make  it  a  single  question  : 
"Answerest  thou  nothing  to  that  which  these 
witness  against  thee?"     But  the  punctuation 
of  the  English  Bible  and  of  the  revisers  cor- 
responds better  to  the  ha.ste  and  excitement  of 
the  questioner:   Answerest  thou  nothing? 
What  is  it,  etc. — He  was  in  a  rage  at  his  own 
failure  and  the  calm  silence  of  his   prisoner. 
He  himself  could  make  nothing  of  the  evi- 
dence, but  in  his  wrath  he  could  hurl  it  at  Je- 
sus as  if  it  were  of  some  importance.    What  is 
it  which  these  witness  against  thee  ?   As  if 
Jesus  must  disjjose  of  the  testimony,  nugatory 
though  it  was. — The  picture  of  his  rage  con- 
fronting Jesus,  who  stood  bound  before  him 
(John  18: 12),  renders  the  silence  of  Jesus  all  the 
more  impressive.      Mark  expresses  it  now  in 
doubled  phrase  after  the  question.    He  held 
his  peace,  and  answered   nothing. — But 
if   nothing    could    be  drawn   from   witnesses, 
something  might  be  drawn  from  himself:  he 
might  be  made  to  commit  himself  by  a  blasphe- 
mous utterance,  or  at  least  by  one  that  would 
be  so  regarded  ;  and  it  was  best  to  go  at  once  to 
the  main  point,  the  question  whether  he  was 
the  Christ.     A  claim  of  the  Messiahship  would 
not  necessarily  be  blasphemous :  some  one  must 
one  day  make  it,  and  rightfully ;   but  if  such 
a  one  as  Jesus  should  make  it,  after  such  life 
and  words  as  his  had  been,  and  especially  now, 
as  he  stood  bound  and  friendless  before  the 
court  of  Jehovah's  nation, — that  might  be  con- 
demned as  blasphemous.    Yet  the  high  priest 
knew  well  enough  what  the  answer  would  be, 
from  words  that  Jesus  had  spoken  in  Jerusalem 
itself.     (See  John  5  :  18  ;  8  :  58  ;  1)  :  37  ;  10  :  3G ; 
12  :  32-37.)— Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  Blessed?     According  to  Matthew,  it 
was  a  solemn  oath  that  the  high  priest  otfered 
him:  "I  adjure  thee  by  the  living  God  that 
thou  tell  us."     As  much  as  to  say,  "  I  put  you 
under  oath,  that  you  may  clear  yourself  of  the 
charge  that  yovi  have  made  this  claim,"  but 
meant  as  an  opportunity  for  him  k)  make  the 


claim  afresh.  The  priest  rejected  the  claim 
with  his  whole  soul,  yet  wished  Jesus  to  make 
it  for  the  sake  of  punishing  it. — The  Blessed. 
A  common  title  for  God  among  the  Jews,  used 
absolutely,  as  a  title,  here  only  in  the  New 
Testament. 

62.  Caiaphas  was  not  wrong  in  relying  upon 
this  appeal  to  break  the  silence.  False  charges 
and  perversions  of  his  words  Jesus  could  leave 
to  defeat  themselves,  but  silence  now  would  be 
unfaithfulness.  So  the  answer  came,  clear  and 
unqualified:  lam.  Matthew  gives  the  answer 
iit  the  rabbinical  formula,  "  Thou  hast  said," 
which  was  perfectly  identical  in  meaning  with 
the  simple  "  Yes."  This  was  no  popular  or 
informal  claim :  it  was  a  solemn  assertion,  in 
the  presence  of  the  religious  court  of  the  Jew- 
ish nation,  in  response  to  the  formal  oath  of 
the  high  priest. — But  the  claim  of  Messiahship 
was  expanded  and  rendered  still  more  distinct  by 
the  memorable  words  that  he  added.  Ye  shall 
see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  right 
hand  of  power,  and  coming  in  the  clouds 
of  heaven.  This,  like  Mark  13  :  26  (see  notes 
there),  is  a  reference  to  Daniel's  vision  (nan.  7: 
13, 14).  By  this  reference  to  well-known  proph- 
ecy respecting  the  Messiah,  Jesus  made  his 
claim  as  bold  and  plain  as  words  could  make 
it.  This  was  a  representation  of  the  Messiah 
as  the  Founder  of  a  kingdom  that  should  take 
the  place  of  the  ancient  world-powers,  and 
should  continue  for  ever.  So  his  answer  means, 
"  I  am  the  Messiah,  and  you  shall  see  me  acting 
as  the  predicted  Founder  of  the  everlasting 
kingdom."  In  Matthew,  "  Henceforth  ye  shall 
see,"  etc. — i.  e.  the  founding  of  the  kingdom 
represented  in  Daniel's  vision  is  now  to  begin 
in  your  very  presence ;  not  "  hereafter,"  in  some 
distant  future. — Jesus  was  not  really  on  trial, 
but  Israel  was ;  this  was  the  trial-moment  of  the 
theocracy.  Had  Israel  eyes  to  recognize  its  King? 

63,  64,  Caiaphas  was  the  mouthpiece  of  the 
nation  at  the  moment  of  decision.  Most  unen- 
viable distinction !  It  was  his  emotion  that 
answered  the  formal  appeal  of  the  true  King 
of  Israel ;  and  his  emotion  was  that  of  un- 
speakable horror  and  indignation.  Now  was 
the  rejection  of  the  Christ ;  now  was  the  rejec- 
tion of  Israel. — The  high  priest  rent  his 


Ch.  XIV.] 


MARK. 


225 


64  Ye  have  heard  the  blasphemy:  what  think  ye?  64  What  further  need  have  we  of  witnesses?  Ye  have 
And  they  all  coiideiiiued  him  to  lie  guilty  of  death.'        j       heard  the   IjlasphcMiy :   what  think  ye?    And  lliey 

()o  And  some  began  to  spit"  on  biia,  and  to  cover  his  65  all  condemned  him  to  he  'worthy  of  death.  .Uid 
face,  and  to  bullet  him,  and  to  say  unto  liiui,  Prophesy  :  i  some  began  to  sjiit  on  him,  and  to  cover  his  face,  and 
and  the  servants  did  strike  him  with  the  palms  of  their  to  bullet  him,  and  to  say  unto  him,  I'rophesy  :  and 

hands.  the  otiicers  received  him  with  -blows  of  their  hauda. 

ach.  13  :  19;  Isa.  50:6. 1  Or.  liable  to 2  Or,  ttroket  o/ rodt 


clothes.  An  act  forbidden  to  him  as  a  sign 
of  ^sorrow  (Lev.  21 :  10) ;  but,  from  the  example  in 
2  Kings  18  :  37,  it  had  become  tlie  rule  to  admit 
the  act  as  a  sign  of  horror  at  bla.sphemy. 
Plumptre  says  that  "  the  judges  in  a  Jewish 
trial  for  bla.sphemy  were  bound  to  rend  tlieir 
clothes  when  the  blasphemous  words  were 
uttered  ;  and  the  clothes  so  torn  were  never 
afterward  to  be  mended."  Accordingly,  for 
the  high  priest  to  rend  his  clothes  was  "  almost 
a.s  much  a  formal  sign  of  condemnation  its  the 
putting  on  of  the  black  cap  by  an  English 
judge."  Maimonidos,  writing,  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  of  Jewish  customs  and  traditions, 
marks  out  the  precise  manner  in  which  clothes 
should  be  rent  in  horror  at  l)hu<i)hemy  and  the 
length  of  the  rents  that  should  be  made.  He 
says  that  all  the  garments  that  a  man  has  on, 
except  the  outermost  and  the  innermost,  should 
be  torn  to  a  specified  extent ;  and  both  tlie 
words  that  are  used  here  in  Matthew  and  Mark 
are  plural — the  outer  garments  {ta  hiinatia)  in 
Matthew,  and  the  inner  garments  (taus  chi- 
tdiKt.t)  in  Mark. — What  need  Ave  any  further 
witnesses?  Ye  have  heard  the  blas- 
phemy. But  the  verb  is  intheaorist:  "Ye 
fieurd  it  as  he  spoke."  Certainly  there  was  no 
need  of  witnesses,  if  this  was  what  they  were 
waiting  for:  the  worst  was  on  record. — What 
think  ye?  A  call  for  the  votes  of  those  who 
had  heard. —  Matthew  quotes  the  response 
directly:  Mark,  indirectly.  Guilty  (eiwc/ion) 
of  death.  When  followed  by  the  genitive  of 
the  crime,  the  word  means  "guilty  of"  as  in 
Mark  3  :  29 ;  when  followed  by  the  genitive  of 
the  penalty,  as  here,  it  means  "  worthy  of"  or 
"justly  exposed  tt)."  It  is  a  fit  word  to  stand 
in  a  verdict.  This  was  the  expression  of  the 
determination  of  the  council ;  not  yet  a  legal 
decision,  because  the  meeting  was  not  a  legal 
meeting,  but  lacking  only  the  form  of  law. 

65.  The  council  has  condemned  him;  he  is 
hopele.>;s  of  safety  and  life ;  therefore  let  loose 
upon  him  all  who  will  insult  and  abuse  him. 
He  is  bound ;    torment   him. — Who  are  they 
that  torment  him  ?    In  Luke,  "  the  men  that 
held  him  :"    in  Mark,   some,  not  further  de- 
fined ;  in  Matthew,  the  indefinite  "  they."     He  , 
still  stands  in  the  midst  of  the  Sanhedrin,  and  j 
the  members  of  that  body  must  know  and  ap-  ' 
15 


prove  of  the  insulting,  if  they  do  not  take  part 
in  it.  That  they  take  no  part  in  the  actual  tor- 
menting is  mure  than  can  be  affirmed. — Some 
began  to  spit  on  him.  Matthew,  "  they  ilid 
spit  in  his  face"  as  he  stood  bound. — And  to 
cover  his  face,  and  to  buffet  him,  and  to 
say  unto  him.  Prophesy.  Enlarged  and 
explained  in  Luke :  "  When  they  had  blind- 
folded him,  they  struck  him  on  the  face,  and 
asked  him,  saying,  Prophesy "  (and  tell), 
"who  is  he  that  smote  thee?"  This  is  triflmg 
with  him  as  a  claimant  to  prophetic  powers : 
"  Can  he  tell,  blindfolded,  which  of  the  wretches 
dancing  round  him  it  was  that  struck  him? 
A  fine  Messiah  if  he  cannot!"  In  Matthew, 
"  Prophesy  unto  us,  thou  Christ." — After  the 
first  comers,  including,  probably,  some  of  the 
Sanhedrists,  had  had  their  fill  of  this,  the  ser- 
vants, "attendants"  or  "officers,"  followed 
the  example,  and  had  their  turn  at  abusing 
him. — Did  strike  him  with  the  palms  of 
their  h&nds.  The  original  of  this  (rha^^isma- 
sin  auton  clahon)  is  apparently  a  Latinism,  mean- 
ing, substantially,  "  they  took  him  to  beat  him  " 
— i.  e.  took  him  into  their  hands  to  beat  hira, 
in  their  turn.  It  is  hard  to  judge  whether 
"  blows  of  their  hands  "  or  "  blows  of  rods  "  is 
better ;  in  the  indeterminate  use  of  the  word, 
perhaps  simply  "blows"  is  best.  The  word 
translated  buffet,  above,  refers  to  blows  with 
the  fist. — .So  he  .stood,  bound,  blindfolded,  spit 
upon,  smitten,  taunted,  loaded  with  insult,  first 
by  one  set  of  men  and  then  by  their  imitators. 
This  was  no  pretence  or  show ;  it  was  the  real 
work  of  real  jiassion — actual  hatred  and  scorn 
doing  their  utmost  in  bitter  earnest.  This  was 
violent  and  intense  rejection,  fulfilling  in  its 
intensity  and  violence  all  the  prophecies  of  re- 
jection and  all  the  descriptions  of  righteous 
sufferers.  (See  Lsa.  50  :  G ;  53  :  3,  7.)  This  is 
the  reception  that  is  accorded  to  the  Incarnate 
God  by  the  people  who  have  had  the  clearest 
revelation,  and  who  consider  themselves  the 
special  friends  and  allies  of  his  government. 
This  is  the  significance  of  the  scene;  it  is  the 
indignant  and  contciuptuous  rejection  of  per- 
fect moral  goodness  by  sinful  men.  This  is  the 
depth  of  sin ;  and  this  is  the  depth  of  humil- 
iation for  the  Mes.senger  who  brings  the  saving 
love  of  God. — No  wordi  froim  his  lips ;  he  was 


226 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


6G  1[  And"  as  Peter  was  beneath  in  the  palace,  there 
Cometh  one  of  the  maids  of  the  high  priest : 

Hi  And  when  she  saw  I'eter  warniing  liimself,  she 
looked  upon  him,  and  said,  And  thou  also  wast  with 
Jesus  of  iN'azareth. 

08  But  he  denied,  saying,*  1  know  not,  neither  un- 
derstand 1  what  thou  sayest.  And  he  went  out  into 
the  porch ;  and  the  cock  crew. 


66  And  as  Peter  was  beneath  in   the  court,  there 

67  cometh  one  of  the  maids  of  the  high  priest ;  and 
seeing  Peter  warming  himself,  she  looked  upon  him, 
and  saith.  Thou  also  wast  with  the  Isazarene,  even 

68  Jesus.  But  he  denied,  saying,  U  neither  know,  nor 
understand  what  thou  sayest :  and  he  went  out  into 


1  Matt.  26  :  69  ;  Luke  22  :  55  ;  John  18  :  16 6  2  Tim.  2  :  12,  13.- 


-1  Or,  /  neither  know,  nor  understand ;  thou,  what  sayest  thou  t 


silent,  as  in  the  trial.  The  remembrance  of  his 
patience  remained  with  his  disciples,  to  be  cited 
as  the  great  example.  (See  1  Pet.  2  :  20,  23.) 
How  true  and  striking  an  illustration  of  his 
self-command  under  this  torture  is  this !  "  When 
he  suffered,  he  threatened  not." 

66-72.  PETER  THRICE  DENIES  HIS 
MASTER.  Parallels,  Matt.  26  .  69-75 ;  Luke 
22  :  56-62 ;  John  18  :  17-27.— The  synoptists  re- 
late the  three  denials  together,  as  forming  a 
connected  whole ;  but  John,  whose  narrative  in 
this  part  is  much  more  full  of  special  details, 
places  the  three  denials  in  their  connection  with 
other  events  that  were  occurring  at  the  same 
time.  The  second  and  third  he  puts  close  to- 
gether, but  between  the  tirst  and  the  second  he 
introduces  other  matter.  It  scarcely  needs  to 
be  said  that  this  paragraph  is  parallel  in  time  to 
the  earlier  part  of  the  preceding,  ending,  per- 
haps, during  the  time  of  the  abuse.  The  story 
of  the  denial  suffers  in  the  matter  of  tragic  in- 
terest by  being  thus  separated  from  the  accom- 
panying scenery  and  exhibited  as  a  detached 
story.  It  is  sad  enough  in  itself,  but  its  deepest 
and  saddest  significance  comes  from  its  connec- 
tion with  what  else  was  going  on  at  the  same 
time.  Of  the  two  scenes,  in  the  court  and  in 
the  house,  each  was  rendered  sadder  by  the 
other. 

The  First  Denial. — 66-68.  John  expressly 
places  this  witliin  the  time  of  the  preliminary 
examination  before  Annas.  The  first  thought 
would  be  that  this  would  require  a  change  of 
place  between  the  first  and  the  second  ;  but  the 
simple  and  probable  conjecture  that  Annas  and 
Caiaphas  occupied  one  house  removes  that  ap- 
parent difficulty.  It  was  probably  merely  from 
one  part  of  the  high  priesfs  palace  to  another 
that  Jesus  was  sent  for  the  second  examination  ; 
so  that  Peter  remained  near  him  throughout 
the  trial. — As  Peter  was  beneath.  Not  in 
the  palace,  but  "  in  the  court."  The  aule  was_ 
the  court  or  quadrangle  around  which  the 
house  was  built,  although  the  word  is  sometimes 
used  of  the  palace  as  a  whole.  The  place  is  said 
to  have  been  beneath,  in  contrast  to  the  rooms 
of  the  house  that  was  built  about  it.  It  was 
here  that  the  fire  was  built  (Luke  22 :  55).  In  Mat- 
-thew,  Peter  is  said  to  have  been  "  without"  in 


the  court.  Here,  in  the  light  of  the  fire  (Luke), 
Peter  was  sitting.  Luke  has  here  the  same 
fresh  descriptive  language  that  Mark  used  at 
verse  54  {pros  to  phos),  "  (turned)  toward  the 
light."  It  shows  us  the  disciple  standing  in 
the  circle  around  the  fire  with  the  strong  glow 
shining  ui)on  his  face. — In  this  light  one  of 
the  maids  (or  maidservants)  of  the  high 
priest  easily  recognized  him.  She  was  "  the 
doorkeeper"  (John),  who  had  let  Peter  in,  in 
company  with  John,  who  brought  him  and  se- 
cured his  admission.  Mark  says,  and  he  alone, 
that  she  saw  Peter  warming  himself,  and 
then  looked  upon  him,  or  "  fixeil  lier  eyes 
on  him,"  looked  carefully  ;  partial  recognition, 
followed  by  a  gaze  that  fully  identified  the  man. 
— Her  charge  is  a  question  in  John;  an  affirma- 
tion in  the  synoptists ;  but  of  one  effect  in  all. 
In  Mark,  thou  also  wast  Avith  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  or,  ratlier,  "  with  the  Nazarene,  Je- 
sus." The  tone  was  doubtless  sharp  and  scorn- 
ful, perhaps  keen  with  ridicule ;  for  did  not 
even  the  serv^ants  know  what  "the  Nazarene'' 
claimed  to  be,  and  in  what  state  he  now  was? 
But  what  mattered  the  tone  or  the  intentions 
of  the  questioner?  It  was  a  simple  questitm  of 
fact,  to  which  friend  or  enemy  ought  never  to 
look  for  any  but  a  truthful  answer. — But, 
though  the  questioner  thought  herself  sure, 
she  was  surprised  by  a  negative  answer.  In 
John,  simply,  "  I  am  not;"  in  Luke,  "  Woman, 
I  do  not  know  him;"  in  Matthew,  "I  know 
not  what  thou  sayest;"  in  Mark,  at  greater 
length,  I  know  not,  neither  understand  I 
what  thou  sayest.  Thus  he  denied  ;  Mat- 
thew, "in  the  presence  of  all."  So  far  as  we 
can  judge,  the  motive  must  have  been  chiefly  a 
sudden  shame.  It  can  scarcely  have  been  def- 
inite and  intelligible  fear;  it  was  rather  a 
shrinking,  a  weakening  of  moral  courage.  It 
had  been  easy  to  profess  bravery,  but  now  it 
was  easier  to  withdraw  from  all  connection 
with  him  whom  Annas  was  seeking  to  con- 
demn :  the  false  "  No  "  was  easier  than  the  loy- 
al "Yes."  But  the  question  and  answer  made 
him  uneasy  by  the  fire,  and  he  went  out 
into  the  porch,  or  vestibule,  the  pas.sage  from 
the  street  to  the  court  within  the  house — went 
thither  to  escape  observation,  even  if  but  a  little 


Ch.  XIV.] 


MARK. 


227 


69  And  a  maid  saw  him  again,  and  began  to  say  to 
them  that  stood  by,  This  is  duc  of  them. 

7ii  And  he  denied  it  again.  And  a  little  after,  they 
that  stood  by  .said  again  to  Peter,  Surely  thou  art  one 
of  them;  for  thou  art  a  (ialileean,"  and  thy  speech 
agreelh  theretu. 

71  Hut  he  began  to  curse  and  to  swear, ray in^r,  I  know 
not  this  man  of  whom  ye  speak. 

7'i  .XikI  (he  secoiiil  tiiiio  the  cock  crew.  And  Peter 
called  to  mind  the  word  that  Jesus  said  unto  him,  He- 
fore  the  cock  crow  twice,  thou  shall  deny  me  thrice. 
And  when  he  thought  thereon,  he  wept.' 


69  the  'porch  :  -and  the  cock  crew.    And  the  maid  saw 

him,  and  began  again  to  say  to  them  that  stood  by, 

70  This  IS  ('»<•  of  them.  I'.ut  he  again  denied  it.  .And 
after  a  little  while  again  they  that  stood  by  said  to 
Peter,  of  a  truth  thou  art  mu:  of  them  ;  for  thou  art 

71  a  (lalilaian.  Hut  he  began  to  curse,  and  to  swear,  I 
7'i  know  not  this  man  of  whom  ye  speak.  And  straight- 
way the  second  time  the  cock  crew.  And  I'eter 
called  to  mind  the  word,  how  that  .lesus  said  unto 
him.  Before  the  cock  crow  twice,  thou  shall  deny  me 
thrice.    ^And  when  be  thought  thereon,  he  wept. 


a  Acts  2:7 62  Cor.  T  :  10.- 


-I  Gr./urecourt....2  Maaj  ancient  autborities  omit  and  the  cock  crew. ...3  Or,  And  he  began  to  weep. 


wliilc. — ^^ark  alone  records  that  as  he  went  the 
cock  crew.  (See  verse  30,  and  note  there.) 
Peter  reinenihercd  this  sound,  wtiich  ought  to 
have  heen  a  warning ;  it  was  prominent  in  his 
memory,  though  not  in  any  other  disciple's 
reminiscences,  and  through  him  it  came  into 
tlie  record.  He  was  alone,  apparently,  wlien 
lie  heard  it.  Must  he  not  often  liave  said  to 
him.self,  "Oh  tliat  I  had  heeded  it"? 

The  Second  Deni.\.l. — 68-70.  The  first  was 
single  and  simjile,  a  response  to  a  single  in- 
quiry ;  hefore  the  moment  of  the  second  the 
questions  came  tliicker.  and  the  denial  was  a 
response  to  more  tlian  one.  The  place,  if  we 
liad  Mark  alone,  woitld  seem  to  be  tlie  porch, 
with  the  female  slave  who  kept  the  door  again 
at  lier  dut\' ;  but  tliis  would  be  only  a  probable 
interpretation,  and  John  says  expressly  that 
Peter  was  standing  by  the  fire  and  warnnng 
himself.  He  had  returned,  tlien ;  possibly  the 
chill  of  tlie  night  had  driven  him  back.  In 
Mark,  the  (juestioner  is  a  maid — /.  e.  the  same 
maid  as  before,  the  doorkeeper;  in  Matthew, 
it  is  "another  maid;"  in  Luke,  "another" 
(nuusculine) — i.  e.  another,  a  man,  in  John,  no 
subject  is  expressed :  it  is  the  indefinite  "  they." 
— In  .Mark  the  maid,  seeing  him,  be^an  to 
say  to  them  that  stood  by,  etc.;  in  which 
there  is  a  suggostinn  of  a  more  general  conver- 
sation. The  doorkeeper  asked  the  question, 
and  others  took  it  up.  The  time,  in  Luke,  is 
"  after  a  little  while."— The  charge  is  virtually 
the  same  in  all  the  synoptists :  This  is  one 
of  them  ;  and  in  John,  again,  it  is  a  question, 
almost  identical  with  the  first,  and  to  the  same 
elfect  with  the  charge  in  the  synoptists.  It 
was  a  simple  question  of  identifying  the  man. 
—His  response  is  merely  cliaracterized  in  Mark 
as  a  denial.  He  denied  it  again.  In  John, 
"I  am  not;"  in  Luke,  "Man,  I  am  not;"  in 
Matthew  it  is  said  that  "he  denied  with  an 
oath,  I  know  not  the  man,"  calling  God  to 
witne-ss  that  Jesus  was  to  him  a  stranger! — 
This  second  was  aj)parently  a  single  denial,  as 
truly  as  the  first ;  but  it  was  made  in  reply  to  a 
ir;<)up  of  inquiries. 


The  Third  Denial. — 70-72.  John  says  noth- 
ing of  the  time;  in  ^latthew  and  Mark  it  is  a 
little  after  (meta  mikron) — not  the  same  word 
as  in  Luke's  account  of  the  second  denial  {meta 
hracliu) ;  in  Luke  the  time  is  specified  as  "about 
one  liour"  later.  The  place  is  not  mentioned, 
and  may  most  naturally  be  supposed  to  be,  as 
before,  by  the  fire. — Now,  again,  perhaps  even 
more  than  before,  the  questions  came  in  a 
group,  from  several  perscms.  In  Matthew  and 
Mark,  they  that  stood  by;  in  Luke,  "an- 
other;" in  John  the  (juestioner  is  "  one  of  the 
servants  of  the  high  priest,  being  kinsman  of 
him  whose  ear  Peter  cut  off." — As  to  the  iden- 
tification of  Peter,  the  questioners  proposed 
two  reasons  for  being  sure  of  their  man.  The 
synoptists  all  make  them  say  that  he  is  a  Gal- 
ilaean,  and  Matthew  specifies,  more  closely, 
that  his  speecli  makes  him  manifest  as  such. 
The  allusion  to  his  speech  in  Mark  is  properly 
omitted  by  the  revisers.  In  Jolin  the  question 
of  the  servant,  from  whom  Peter  might  well 
shrink,  is,  "  Did  I  not  see  thee  in  the  garden 
with  him?"  It  is  said  that  the  Galilrean  speech 
differed  from  that  of  Jerusalem  in  a  certain 
thickness  of  utterance  in  the  guttural  sounds, 
and  in  a  difficulty  that  Galilteans  had  in  pro- 
nouncing nh,  which  they  transformed  into  th. 
It  has  been  suggested  as  possil)le  that  the  pecu- 
liarity may  have  appeared  in  Peter's  pronun- 
ciation of  "  Nazareth  "  or  "  Nazarene."  In  his 
excitement  the  native  peculiarity  would  more 
decidedly  ai>pear. — Now  tliat  the  recognition 
was  so  positive  and  well  groiuided,  the  im- 
happy  man  felt  called  upon  for  the  stronger 
denial.  First,  the  denial  was  simple;  then, 
"with  an  oath;"  now,  he  began  to  curse 
and  to  swear.  So  Matthew  and  Mark.  The 
cursing,  however,  was  not  reckless  and  point- 
less jirofanity,  as  the  use  of  the  word  in  mod- 
em .speech  would  suggest.  Rather  does  the 
word  suggest  some  such  form  as  that  of  2 
Kings  6  :  31 :  "  God  do  .so,  and  more  also,  to 
me,  if  the  liead  of  Elisha  the  son  of  Shaphat 
shall  stand  on  him  this  day."  The  swearing, 
or  oath,  would  call  God  to  witness,  and  the 


228 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


cursing  would  invoke  evil  from  God  upon 
himself  if  wliat  he  said  was  false.  The  state- 
ment which  he  would  thus  confirm  was,  I 
know  not  this  man  of  whom  ye  speak. 

— In  the  midst  of  the  final  act  of  sin  came  the 
reproof.  "  Immediately  the  cock  crew ;"  Luke, 
"  while  he  was  yet  speaking."  Mark  notes  that 
it  was  the  second  cock-crowing.  (See  above.) 
Tliis  time  the  warning  was  noticed ;  but  Luke 
adds  tlie  mention  of  the  other  unspeakably 
touching  reproof,  that  cut  the  sinful  man  to 
the  heart:  "The  Lord  turned  and  looked  upon 
Peter."  Standing,  probably,  in  the  midst  of 
the  abuse,  with  cruel  enemies  mocking  him, 
he  still  had  "  leisure  from  himself"  to  know 
what  his  boastful  follower  was  doing,  and  to 
turn  to  him  with  a  heart-searching  look.  He 
was  somewhere  within  the  apartments  of  the 
house,  and  Peter  was  in  the  inner  court ;  through 
some  open  door  his  piercing  glance  could  be  seen. 
With  the  cock-crowing  and  the  look  came  back 
to  his  memory  the  Lord's  prediction,  which  he 
had  thought  he  could  never  fulfil,  and  his  heart 
was  broken.  John  says  nothing  of  the  result; 
in  Matthew  and  Luke,  he  "  wept  bitterly ;"  in 
Mark  the  language  is  unusual,  and  not  very 
plain  {epibalon  eklaien) :  it  is  variously  trans- 
lated by  interpreters,  but  probably  best  render- 
ed as  in  the  English  Bible,  when  he  thought 
thereon,  he  wept.  He  heard  the  cock,  he 
saw  the  look  of  Jesus,  he  remembered  the  say- 
ing of  Jesus,  he  thought  of  the  saying  and  what 
it  meant,  he  "  went  out,"  away  from  the  fire 
and  the  questioners,  and  he  "  wept  bitterly ;" 
as  well  he  might !  But  the  tears  were  tears  of 
penitence.  Judas  went  away  in  the  agony  of 
despair  to  throw  away  his  life;  Peter  went  out 
in  that  "  godly  sorrow  that  worketh  repentance 
unto  salvation." — In  these  notes  upon  the  de- 
nial the  fourfold  record  has  been  brought  to- 
gether, in  order  to  show  that  there  is  here 
no  essential  difference  between  the  evangelists. 
Charges  of  contradiction  have  often  been  made ; 
but  they  are  shown  to  be  vain  as  soon  as  we 
reproduce  the  scene  and  remember  how  many 
persons  were  present  from  whom  the  inquiries 
about  this  disciple  would  naturally  proceed. 
Some  (as  Plumptre)  have  been  inclined  to 
change  the  order  somewhat  and  make  Mark's 


second  denial  the  third,  while  John's  third  is 
identified  with  the  second.  But  each  evan- 
gelist apparently  intends  to  record  three  de- 
nials, and  probably  to  record  them  in  their 
order ;  and  no  considerable  difficulties  are  met 
with  in  explaining  the  stor>'  as  it  stands.  There- 
fore it  seems  best  not  to  attempt  changes  of 
order. 

The  lessons  of  the  denial  are  manifest  and 
familiar — the  folly  and  danger  of  self-confi- 
dence ;  the  folly  of  relying  upon  the  readiness 
of  the  spirit  and  forgetting  the  weakness  of  the 
flesh ;  the  folly  of  disregarding  friendly  warn- 
ings from  the  best  of  friends  ;  the  folly  of  going 
into  company  where  denial  will  be  easier  than 
acknowledgment ;  the  folly  of  failing  to  antici- 
pate the  power  of  coming  temptation  ;  the  cer- 
tainty that  one  act  of  sin  will  call  for  another 
to  protect  it ;  the  danger  that  the  second  sin 
will  be  more  decided  than  the  first,  and  the 
third  more  positive  than  the  second ;  the  power 
of  man  to  act  upon  his  worse  nature  even  when 
a  better  is  in  him.  On  the  other  hand,  the  grasp 
of  Jesus  on  Peter  availed  when  the  grasp  of 
Peter  on  Jesus  would  never  have  availed  to  save 
him ;  the  tenderness  of  Jesus,  ready  with  his 
forewarning ;  his  patience,  not  wearied  out  even 
by  this ;  his  thoughtfulness  for  his  servant,  and 
the  timeliness  of  his  reproachful  look.  Pen- 
itence is  the  best  gift  of  God  to  a  sinner.  Peter 
delighted  to  say  that  Jesus  was  exalted  "to give 
repentance  to  Israel,  and  forgiveness  of  sins" 
(Acts  5 :  31).  Peter  dared  to  say  (Acts  3 :  u),  "  Ye  de- 
nied the  Holj'  One  and  the  Just."  "So  did  I," 
he  might  have  added,  "but  he  looked  me  into 
penitence ;  and  now  I  am  trving  to  show  you 
the  same  pleading  eyes  fixed  upon  you  to  look 
you  into  penitence  too.  Will  you  not  behold 
them  ?" — John  was  in  the  same  company  with 
Peter,  but  he  stood  while  Peter  fell.  Hence, 
Peter  could  not  plead  necessity.  What  nuist 
have  been  the  feelings  of  John,  who  had 
brought  his  fellow-disciple  in,  if  he  heard  him 
disown  their  common  Master?  It  seems  as  if 
he  could  not  have  lieard  it ;  for  would  he  not 
have  remonstrated  and  .«aved  Peter  the  second 
and  third  denials? — But  for  such  a  triumph  of 
grace  in  Peter  the  weak,  the  church  might  never 
have  had  Peter  the  strong,  the  genuine  rock. 


Cn.  XV.] 


MARK. 
CHAPTER   XV. 


229 


AND  straightway  in  the  morning  the  chief  priests 
lield  a  consultation"  with  the  elders  and  scril)es 
and  the  whole  eouncii,  and  bound  Jesus,  and  carried 
liim  away,  and  delivered  Mm  to  Pilate. 


1  And  straightway  in  the  niorninK  the  chief  priests 
with  the  elders  and  scribes,  and  the  whole  council 
held  a  consultation,  and  bound  Jesus,  and  carried' 


a  Ps.  2  :  3;  Matt.  27  :  I,  etc. ;  Luke  23  :  1 ;  John  18  :  28 ;  Acu  3  :  13  ;  4  : 


1-15.  JESUS    APPEARS    BEFORE    THE 
FULL  SANHEDRIN,  AND  IS  THEN  SENT 
TO  PILATE,  WHO,  AFTER  VAIN  EFFORTS 
TO  RELEASE  HIM,  GIVES  HIM  UP  TO  BE 
CRUCIFIED.     Parallel,  Matt.  27  :  1-26 ;  Luke 
22 :  66-23 :  25  ;  John  18  :  2i^l9  :  16.— Here  Mark's 
narrative  is  briefest,  omitting  much  that  the 
others  mention.      Here,   also,   and  from    this 
point  on   through   the  story  of   the   Passion, 
Mark  is  less  rieh  than  anywhere  else  in  those 
graphic  touehes  of  description  that  are  general- 
ly so  characteristic  of  him.     His  narrative  runs 
on  much   more  closely  than  elsewhere  in  the 
course  taken  by  the  others,  especially  by  Mat- 
thew ;   and  the  plain,  unpicturesciue  character 
of  his  style  in  this  part  can  scarcely  fail  to  strike 
a  student  of  the  Greek  text.     A  sufficient  and 
very  interesting  explanation  of  tlie  change  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  Peter,  after  his  denial, 
was  not  a  close  observer  of  tlie  progress  of 
events.     Whether  he  was  present  at  all.  we  do  , 
not  know ;  and  if  he  was,  it  was  with  a  broken 
heart  that  would  scarcely  venture  near  the  Mas- 
ter whom  he  had  so  deeply  wronged.    Very  few 
of  his  grai)hic  renuniscences   would  Mark  be  i 
able  to  oI)tain,  and  much  more  than  elsewhere 
would   he   be   dependent  upon    the    conniion 
sources  of  information.    This  coincidence  forms 
a  very  interesting  confirmation  of  the  opinion 
that  Peter's  influence  was  the  leading  one  in 
the  preparation  of  this  book.     Luke  tells  what  , 
Wius  done  at  the  official  meeting  of  the  Sanhe- 
drin,  and   mentions  the  sending  of  Jesus  to 
Herod ;    Matthew  introduces  the  remorse  and 
suicide  of  Judas,  and  tells  of  the  dream  of  ' 
Pilate's  wife  and  the  effort  of  Pilate  to  throw 
off  the  responsil)ility  of  the  condemnation  of 
his  prisoner;  Jolin  sjieaks  of  tlie  shrinking  of 
the  priests  from  the  defilement  of  Pilate's  judg- 
ment-hall, recounts  most  fully  the  interviews 
between  Jesus  and  Pilate,  describes  the  impres- 
sion that  the  pris(mer  made  upon  the  governor, 
and  makes  prominent  the  efforts  of  Pilate  to 
secure  his  release.    John  had  known  the  trial 
more  accurately  than  the  others,  partly  from 
the  fact  of  his  acquaintance  with  the  high  priest 
(johDi8:i5),  and  intentionally  completed  the  re- 
ports already  in  existence.     If  Peter  had  been 
loyal,   he   would   have  known   all   that  John 
knew  (Johns :  16).     AH  the  matters  above  men- 


tioned Mark  omits  or  passes  over  rApidly,  and 
confines  himself  to  facts  that  are  common  to 
him  with  other  evangelists. 

1.  The  meeting  that  is  here  mentioned  is  the 
one  that  could  not  be  held  till  daybreak,  tlie 
formal  a-ssembly  of  the  Sanhedrin.  The  whole 
council  took  part  in  it— t.  e.  the  whole  San- 
hedrin.   The  Aramaic  word  is  a  corruption  of 
the  Greek  sunedrion.— For  a  meeting  that  could 
[  legally  find  their  victim  guilty,  they  seized  the 
I  first  iiossible  moment.     Straightway  iu  the 
morning.    Luke,  "  as  soon  as  it  was  day."   Of 
this  meeting  Mark  tells  nothing,  except  in  the 
I  words  held  a  consultation;    Matthew  tells 
nothing  more,  except  that  the  consultation  was 
"against  Jesus,  to  put  him  to  death."    Accord- 
ing  to   the  most  probable  arrangement,   this 
j  meeting  is  more  fully  reported  in    Luke  22  : 
j  66-71.      There    are    some  difficulties    in    this 
grouping,  but  le.ss,  on  the  whole,  than  in  any 
other.     According  to  this,  the  witnesses  were 
not  called  in  at  the  formal  meeting,  but  the 
council  repeated  the  question  that  had  elicited 
the  desired  blasphemy  :  "  Art  thou  the  Christ?" 
I  The  answer  of  Jesus  (Luke  m  :  67-70)  well  corre- 
sponds to  the  fact  of  a  second  questioning :  he 
asserts  his  tnie  Messiahship,  but  does  it  with  a 
kind  of  protest  against   the  unreasonableness 
and  ungodliness  of  their  demand.     His  confes- 
sion is  taken  as  sufficient  evidence  of  blasphemy, 
and  he  is  condemned  by  a  formal  vote.— Here 
first  do  Matthew  and  isiark  sjicak  of  the  fact 
that  he  was  bound ;   John  said  that  he  was 
bound  in  the  garden.     Perhaps  this  later  bind- 
ing was  a  special   binding  in   t^ken   of  con- 
denuiation  :    so  early   tradition   represents,  af- 
firming that  he  was  led  to  Pilate  with  a  cord 
around  his  neck— Delivered  him  to  Pilate. 
The  Sanhedrin  was  not  allowed,  under  the  Ro- 
man Power,  to  execute  the  penalty  of  death, 
and  the  next  step  necessarily  wtis  to  obtain  the 
consent  of  the  governor  to  the  death  of  Jesus. 
Doubtless,  no  trouble  was  apprehendcnl  in  ob- 
taining it.     Troops  had  been  sent  to  aid  in  the 
arrest ;  the  city  was  full  of  Jews  ;  and  the  de- 
sire of  the  leaders  at  sucli  a  time,  especially 
against  one  who  had  no  visible  claim  upon  the 
governor  and  could  be  accused  of  exciting  the 
people  by  claiming   royalty,  seemed  to   them 
altogether  likely  to    be  successful.  —  Pilate. 


230 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XV. 


2  And  Pilate  asked  him,  Art  thou  the  King  of  the 
Jews  ?  And  he,  answering,  said  unto  him.  Thou  say- 
est  it. 

3  And  the  cliief  priests  accused  him  of  many  things : 
but  he  answered  nothing. 

4  And  Pilate  asked  him  again,  saying,  Answerest 
thou  nothing  ?  Behold  how  many  things  they  wit- 
ness against  thee. 

5  But  Jesus"  yet  answered  nothing;  so  that  Pilate 
marvelled. 


2  him  away,  and  delivered  him  up  to  Pilate.  And 
Pilate  asked  him,  Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews? 
And   he   answering  saith   unto   him,  Thou   sayest. 

3  And  the  chief  priests  accused  him  of  many  things. 

4  And  Pilate  again  asked  him,  saying,  Answerest 
thou  nothing?  behold  how  many  things  they  accuse 

5  thee  of.  But  Jesus  no  more  answered  anything; 
insomuch  that  Pilate  marvelled. 


a  Isa.  53  :  7  ;  John  19  :  9. 


Pontius  Pilate,  the  Roman  Procurator  of  Ju- 
daea. The  procurator  was  primarily  the  collec- 
tor of  the  imperial  revenue,  but  he  was  invested 
also  with  judicial  power.  The  residence  of  the 
Procurator  of  Judsea  was  ordinarily  at  Caisarea, 
but  at  the  great  national  festivals  he  was  obliged, 
often  nmch  against  his  will,  to  be  present  at 
Jerusalem.  Of  Pilate's  early  history  nothing 
definite  is  known.  He  came  to  Judaea  about 
A.  D.  26,  and  remained  not  far  from  ten  years  in 
office.  His  administration  had  been  marked 
by  frequent  and  needless  insults  to  the  Jews, 
especially  in  the  way  of  outraging  their  relig- 
ious prejudices,  and  the  Jews  had  no  love  for 
him.  His  character  was  but  too  well  illustrated 
in  his  relations  with  our  Lord — not  altogether 
bad,  but  weak  even  while  stubborn ;  wilful,  yet 
vacillating,  and  incapable  of  perceiving  high 
truth  and  purity. 

!2.  At  first  (John)  they  supposed  that  their 
mere  assertion  that  Jesus  was  a  malefactor 
would  be  sufficient;  but  Pilate  remembered 
that  he  was  a  judge,  and  called  for  their  case 
against  him.  Then  (Luke)  they  made  their 
charge — not  at  all  the  same  as  in  their  own 
council,  but  a  fresh  one  suited  to  the  governors 
ears.  Any  charge  would  do,  if  only  it  would 
be  successful.  Three  accusations  appear  in 
Luke:  stirring  up  the  peojile,  forbidding  to 
give  tribute  to  Ca3sar,  and  claiming  to  be  Christ 
a  King.  Religious  offences  would  be  nothing 
here :  their  only  hope  lay  in  establishing  polit- 
ical charges. — Upon  this  came  Pilate's  question. 
Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews?  Thou  is 
emphatic.  The  language  is  so  reported  by  all 
four  evangelists.  We  can  imagine  the  question 
asked  in  the  tone  of  scorn  or  of  amusement  or 
of  pity.  What  a  moment  to  inquire  about  his 
kingship  !  Bound,  disgraced,  apparently  help- 
less, he  stood  where  no  Messiah  could  be  con- 
ceived by  a  Jew  to  stand.  The  Messiah  was  to 
triumph  over  tlie  Gentiles ;  but  Jesus  was  at  the 
mercy  of  tlie  Gentile  governor,  who  was  asking 
him.  Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews  ? — But 
the  answer  was  not  withJield.  Thou  sayest 
it.  The  fornmla  of  the  rabbis,  eijuivalent  to  a 
positive  "  Yes  ;"  so  Pilate  would  understand  it, 


and  all  hearers  with  him.  From  John  we  learn 
that  this  question  and  reply  formed  a  part  of  a 
longer  conversation  in  which  Jesus  set  forth  the 
nature  of  his  kingdom  as  an  unworldly  king- 
dom and  a  kingdom  of  truth,  intending,  ap- 
parently, to  relieve  Pilate's  fear  of  political 
complications  on  account  of  his  claims,  and  at 
the  same  time  to  let  him  hear  what  his  own 
claims  really  were. — In  connection  with  this 
conversation,  study  the  effect  of  his  sufferings 
on  the  attitude  of  Jesus.  See  how  steadily  he 
maintained  his  own  consciousness  of  his  mis- 
sion and  claims  ;  how  he  never  lost  sight  of  his 
true  position  for  a  moment  or  spoke  as  any 
other  than  the  Christ  of  God,  the  Judge  of  the 
world.  This  was  true  when  he  was  before  the 
high  priest ;  it  was  true  in  the  presence  of  Pi- 
late ;  and  it  continued  true  on  the  cross. 

3-5.  The  chief  priests  reiterated  the  accusa- 
tions above  quoted  from  Luke,  and  tried  all 
that  seemed  to  have  any  hope  or  promise  in 
them.  Yet  we  learn  from  John  that  they  them- 
selves did  not  enter  into  the  judgment-hall,  for 
fear  of  contracting  defilement  that  would  dis- 
qualify them  for  the  remainder  of  the  passover 
feast.  No  fear  had  they  of  the  defilement  of  in- 
justice, but  ceremonial  impurity  they  must  shun 
as  if  it  were  death.  He  whom  they  would  kill 
was  the  One  who  had  pointed  out  to  them  this 
very  thing,  the  vanity  of  external  defilements 
and  the  true  source  of  the  evil  that  does  defile. 
Such  deeper  secrets  of  defilement  they  did  not 
wish  to  know  ;  even  a  burdensome  outward  law 
was  easier  for  them  to  keep  than  an  inward  law 
of  righteousness. — But  he  answered  noth- 
ing, at  the  end  of  verse  3,  is  omitted  in  the  best 
text ;  his  silence  is  implied  in  Pilate's  question. 
As  the  accusations  before  the  high  priest  had 
drawn  out  no  reply  from  him,  so  this  new  set 
of  charges,  as  empty  as  the  first,  brought  no 
answer  from  his  lips.  We  do  not  imagine  the 
true  majesty  of  this  silence  until  we  think  of 
the  excitement  and  feverishness  of  his  oppo- 
nents. The  priests  were  outside  the  hall,  whis- 
pering and  agitating  among  the  people,  and  ac- 
cusation after  accusation  was  brought  to  the 
governor.    The  prisoner  may  have  had  in  mind 


Ch.  XV.] 


MARK. 


231 


6  Now  at  thai  feast  he  released  unto  them  one  pris- 
oner, wliomsoever  they  desired. 

7  .\iid  there  was  (inf  named  Barabbas,  u'hich  lay 
bound  witli  them  that  had  made  insurrection  with 
him,  wlio  liud  committed  murder  in  tlie  insurrection. 

8  And  the  multitude,  cryin;;  aloud,  began  to  desire 
him  to  do  as  he  bad  ever  dune  unto  them. 


6     Now  at  itbe  feast  he  used  to  release  unto  them 

7 one    prisoner,    whom    they    asked    of   him.      And 

there   was  one   called   Barabbas,  lyinii  bound  with 

them   that    bad    made    insurrection,   men    who   in 

8  the    insurrection    bad    committed     murder.      And 

the   multitude  went    up  and    began  to   ask    him 


a  Hatt.  27  :  15 ;  Luke  23  :  17 ;  John  18  :  39.- 


-1  Or,  a  feast 


Isa.  53  :  7 :  "  He  was  oppressed,  and  lie  was  af- 
flifted,  yet  he  opened  not  his  mouth  ;"  but  if  he 
had,  lie  was  not  trying  to  fultil  the  prophecy. 
Rather  would  the  proi)hecy  comfort  him  and 
keep  him  nerved  for  patience,  as  did  the  other 
Scriptures  when  he  knew  "that  thus  it  must 
be"  (Matt. 26: 54). — Pilatc's  qucstiou  implied  that 
Jesus  could  not  atTord  to  leave  such  accusations 
unanswered.  It  was  quite  new  to  him  as  a  judge 
to  see  a  prisoner  so  inditlerent  to  defence.  Little 
did  Pilate  know  how  well  his  prisoner  could  af- 
ford to  "commit  himself  to  him  thatjudgeth 
righteously  "  (i  Pet.  2 :  23),  or  how  morally  impos- 
sible it  was  for  him  to  condescend  to  answer 
such  accusations,  even  though  they  might  put 
his  life  in  jeopardy. — The  governor's  appeal  for 
a  defence  was  as  powerless  as  the  attacks  of  the 
enemies,  and  the  silence  was  unbroken:  Jesus 
yet  answered  nothing.  "Jesus  no  more  an- 
swered anything"  (in  the  Revision)  is  not  an 
improvement  on  the  old  rendering.  In  Mat- 
thew, as  in  the  Revision,  "  he  gave  him  no  an- 
swer, not  even  to  one  word  " — i.  e.  no  response 
to  a  single  word  of  what  Pilate  had  been  say- 
ing.— At  the  silence  Pilate  marvelled;  in 
Matthew,  "  marvelled  greatly."  No  doubt  it 
seemed  to  him  reckless  self-abandonment.  He 
saw  no  crime  in  Jesus,  but,  since  the  charges 
were  false,  why  did  he  not  defend  himself? 

According  to  Luke,  Pilate  here  reported  to 
the  accusers  that  he  found  in  Jesus  nothing 
worthy  of  death,  and  they  thereupon  renewed 
the  charge  of  popular  agitation,  begun  in  Gal- 
ilee and  prosecuted  all  the  way  to  Jerusalem. 
Well  they  knew  how  little  dangerous  this  agita- 
tion was.  If  it  had  only  been  dangerous  to  Pi- 
late and  his  masters,  they  would  all  have  fallen 
in  with  it ;  but  they  chose  to  represent  it  as  sedi- 
tion, though  they  knew  that  they  were  lying. — 
The  mention  of  Galilee  reminded  Pilate  of  Her- 
od, who  had  over  Galilee  a  kind  of  authority, 
and  wlio  was  then  in  Jerusalem  ;  and  he  seized 
the  opiiortunity  to  rid  himself  of  an  unpleasant 
responsibility  by  sending  Jesus  and  his  accusers 
to  Herod.  Before  him  the  accusations  were  re- 
newed, and  Herod  himself  asked  Jesus  many 
questions ;  but  the  maje.stic  silence  was  still  un- 
broken, and  no  ground  of  condemnation  was 
discovered.     But  the  prisoner  was  there  again 


insulted,  and  thence  he  was  sent  back  to  the 
original  tribunal. 

6-8.  Now  at  that  feast  he  released  unto 
them  one  prisoner.     No  other  traces  remain 
of  this  custom  of  releasing  a  prisoner  at  the 
feast  on  demand  of  the  people.    It  is  akin, 
however,  to  certain  Roman  customs  observed 
at  the  festivals  of  the  gods,  and  so  it  is  not  un- 
likely  that  Pilate  may  have  introduced  it  among 
the  Jews,  perhaps  by  way  of  atonement  for  his 
wanton  insults  to  the  populace.    Whether  the 
practice  extended  to  any  other  festivals  besides 
the  passover  does  not  appear,  but  the  language 
of  John  renders  it  scarcely  probable  that  it  did. 
— Of  Barabbas  nothing  is  known  except  what 
is  learned  here.    The  name,  "  Bar-abbas,"  means 
"son  of  his  father,"   which   may  perhaps  be 
taken  to  mean  that  he  was  of  distinguished 
family  and  was  named  in  family  pride.     But 
the  title  "  father"  was  given  to  rabbis,  and  it  is 
i  quite  possible  that  it  means  in  this  case  "son 
I  of  a  rabbi,"  and  that  the  religious  connections 
of  the  man  are  thus  indicated.     Matthew  says 
that  he  was  a  "  notable,"  or  distinguished,  pris- 
oner, which  indicates  that  he  was  personally 
well  known,  and  at  the  same  time  that  his  case 
was  a  remarkable  one.     The  readiness   with 
which  the  people  were  united  in  calling  for 
him  may  be  taken  as  a  sign  that  he  was  in  some 
sense  a  popular  ftivorite.    Of  his  crime,  we  are 
told  that  there  had  been  an  insurrection  in  the 
city,  that  the  insurgents  had  committed  mur- 
der, and   that  the  insurgents,  who  were  also 
j  murderers — among  whom  was  Barabbas — were 
now  lying  in  prison.     From  the  prominence  of 
his  name,  we  should  infer  that  he  had  been  a 
leader  in  the  insurrection.     One  of  the  latest 
insurrections  had  been  occasioned  by  the  act  of 
Pilate  in   taking  the  money  from  the  sacred 
treasury,  dedicated  to  God  under  the  name  of 
"  Corban  "  (Matt.  15 : 5;  Mark  7 :  11),  for  the  Construc- 
tion of  aqueducts,  whereby  he  brought  water 
to  Jerusalem  from  the  distance  of  four  hundred 
furlongs    (Josephus,    Wars.   2.  9.  4).      Tliis,   of 
course,  aroused  the  indignation  of  the  Jews, 
and  in  the  tunuilt  that  ensued  many  lost  their 
lives.      If  Barabbas  and  his  companions  were 
engaged  in  this  insurrection,  there  was  reason 
why  the  people  should  be  interested  in  them. 


232 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XV. 


9  But  Pilate  answered  them,  saying,  Will  ye  that  I 
release  unto  you  the  King  of  the  Jews? 

HI  I'or  he  knew  that  the  chief  priests  had  delivered 
him  for  envy." 

11  But  the  chief  priests  moved  the  people,  that  he 
should  rather  release*  Barabbas  unto  them. 


9  to  do  as  he  was  wont  to  do  unto  them.   And  Pilate  an- 
swered them,  saying.  Will  ye  that  I  release  unto  you 
10 the  King  of  the  Jews?     For  he  perceived  that  for 
11  envy  the  chief  priests  had  delivered  him  up.    But 
the  chief  priests  stirred  up  the  multilude,  that  he 


oProv.  27:4;  Kcclea.  4  :  4;  Acts  13  :  45  ;  Tit.  3  :3....6  Acts  3  :  14. 


In  such  an  insurrection,  too,  the  "  son  of  a  rab- 
bi "  might  easily  be  concerned,  for  all  the  relig-  I 
ious  passions  of  the  people  would  then  be  on  ! 
fire.     Some  ancient  authorities,  though  not  the  j 
most  ancient  or  the  most  decisive,   make  his  ; 
name,  in  Matt.  27  :  17,  to  be  "Jesus  Barabbas."  1 
"Jesus,"  which  is  the  same  as  "Joshua,"  was  j 
a  common  name  among  the  Jews,  and  this  man  I 
may  have  been  called  "  Jesus  the  rabbi's  son." 
This  would  render  plain  and  striking  the  lan- 
guage of  Pilate  in  the  {passage  cited :  "  Which 
will  ye  that  I  release  to  you,  Jesus  Barabbas,  or 
Jesus  who  is  called  Christ?"     But  the  contrast 
of  verse  20,  in  Matthew,  "  that  they  should  ask 
Barabbas,  and  destroy  Jesus,"  seems  to  prove 
that  the  writer  had  no  such  second  name  for 
Barabbas  in  mind. — The  mention  of  releasing 
a  prisoner  comes,  in   Mark,  from   the   people, 
who — not  crying  aloud,  but — "going  up"  (so 
the  best  text),  thronged  about  the  palace,  and 
demanded  that  the  governor  should  conform  to 
the  custom.    All  the  other  evangelists  mention 
it  first  when  it  came  as  a  proposal  from  the 
lips  of  Pilate.    Probably  the  popular  request 
was  prepared  by  the  counsel  of  the  priests. 

9-11.  From  this  point,  even  in  the  extremely 
brief  record  of  Mark,  Pilate  appears  anxious 
to  set  Jesus  at  liberty.  In  none  of  the  synoptic 
narratives  does  any  adequate  reason  appear 
for  this  anxiety.  It  is  only  when  we  turn  tor 
the  fuller  record  of  John  and  are  informed  of 
the  earlier  interview  (John  is:  ss-ss),  in  which  Je- 
sus declared  himself  a  King  of  truth,  that  we 
understand  the  governor's  desire  to  save  him. 
Not  that  Pilate  was  by  that  first  interview  pro- 
foundly awed,  but  after  it  he  would  feel  that 
Jesus  was  at  the  worst  a  harmless  enthusiast 
whose  ideas  were  not  of  the  kind  that  ought 
to  bring  him  before  the  Judgment-seat.  With 
such  a  thought  in  mind,  he  remembered  that 
he  was  a  judge,  and  his  sense  of  justice  prompt- 
ed him  to  shield  his  prisoner  from  wrong. 
Already  was  the  better  imi)ulse  jiresent  that 
might  have  saved  Pilate  from  his  crime. — The 
offer  to  release  Jesus,  according  to  the  custom 
of  releasing  a  prisoner,  was  intended  to  be 
favorable  to  him,  and  so  was  the  form  of  the 
proposal — Will  ye  that  I  release  unto  you 
the  King  of  the  Jews? — whicli  was  an  at- 
tempt to  touch  the  national  feeling.     A  very 


ignorant  attempt,  however :  these  Jews  would 
have  none  of  a  king  who  had  stood  bound  be- 
fore a  Gentile  ruler,  unless,  indeed,  he  took  that 
as  the  opportunity  to  free  himself  glorify 
Israel,  and  destroy  the  Gentile  dominion. — But 
Pilate  knew  that  the  chief  priests  had 
delivered  him  for  envy — i.  e.  because  they 
feared  his  infiuence  upon  the  people,  which 
would  certainly,  if  left  alone,  destroy  theirs. 
Therefore  he  thought  a  direct  appeal  to  the  peo- 
ple might  possibly  meet  with  a  favorable  re- 
sponse.— Pilate's  knowledge  of  the  motives  of 
the  priests  is  an  important  element  in  the  case. 
The  certainty  in  his  mind  that  this  was  an  un- 
just prosecution  made  him  without  excuse  in 
his  vacillation  and  his  final  surrender.  Just 
here  also  comes  in,  in  Matthew,  the  story  of 
the  message  from  his  wife  warning  him 
against  taking  part  in  the  proceeding  against 
Jesus.  Her  thoughts  about  Jesus  may  have 
sprung  wholly  from  her  dream,  but  it  is  at  least 
as  likely  that  her  dream  about  Jesus  was  sug- 
gested by  her  previous  anxious  thoughts.  Re- 
inforced by  such  a  special  warning,  Pilate's 
conscience  ought  to  have  been  strong  enough — 
nay,  it  was  strong  enough,  if  he  had  not  tam- 
pered with  it — to  govern  him. — The  picture 
sketched  so  rapidly  in  verse  11  is  full  of  dread- 
ful meaning.  The  chief  priests  were  out- 
side, too  conscientious  to  come  into  the  hall, 
and  they  were  going  to  and  fro  among  the 
multitude,  excited  already,  talking  to  this  man 
and  to  that,  exciting  them  still  more,  and  sug- 
gesting the  roltber  and  murderer  as  the  one  for 
them  to  choose  instead  of  Jesus.  How  deep 
was  tlie  fall  of  Judaism  !  its  priests  condescend- 
ing to  the  work  of  demagogues,  agitating  for 
the  acceptance  of  a  murderer  instead  t)f  the 
Holy  One  of  God !  This  was,  as  it  were,  an 
official  degradation  of  the  glory  of  Israel,  a  de- 
liberate dragging  of  the  sacred  things  in  the 
mire.  Thus  for  the  final  cry,  wliich  "  pre- 
vailed" (Luke),  the  chief  priests  were  directly 
responsible. — The  first  popular  uttei-ance  that 
is  recorded  was,  "  Not  this  man,  but  Barabbas" 
(John) ;  in  Luke,  still  stronger,  "  Away  with 
this  man,  and  release  unto  us  Barabbas." 

12-14.  The  governor  had  put  the  question 
to  the  people,  and  would  not  take  it  back :  if 
they  would  decide  the  matter,  so  much   the 


Ch.  XV.] 


MARK. 


233 


12  And  Pilate  answered,  and  said  again  unto  them, 
What  will  ye  then  that  I  shall  do  unto  him  whom  ye 
call  the  Kingo  of  the  Jews? 

i:{  And  they  cried  out  again.  Crucify  him. 

14  Then  I'il'ate  said  unto  them,  Why,  what  evil*  hath 
he  done?  And  they  cried  out  the  more  exceedingly, 
(rucifv  him. 

IT)  1'  And  .so  Pilate,  willing  to  content  the  people,  re- 
leased Harahhas  unto  them,  and  delivered  Jesus,  when 
he  had  scourged  him,  to  he  crucilied. 


12  should  rather  release  BaraV)has  unto  them.  And 
Pilate  again  answered  and  said  unto  them,  What 
then  shall  1  do  unto  him  whom  ye  call  the  King  of 

i:!the  .lews?    And  they  cried  out  again,  (  rucify  him. 

14  .And  Pilate  said  unlothem.  Why,  what  evil  hath  he 
done  ?    Hut  they  cried  out  exceedingly,  <  rucify  him. 

1,")  And  Pilate,  wishing  to  content  the  multitude,  re- 
leased unto  them  Barahhas,  and  delivered  Jesus, 
when  be  bad  scourged  him,  to  be  crucilied. 


aPs.  2:6;  Jer.  2.1:5;  Acts  5  :  31 ...  .6  Isa.  53  :  9. 


easier  for  him.  He  had  proposed  to  please 
them,  and  so  he  continued  in  the  same  direc- 
tion with  his  question.  What  will  ye  then 
that  I  shall  do  unto  him  whom  ye  call 
the  K-ing  of  the  Jews?  Matthew,  "with 
Jesus,  who  is  called  Christ?"— What  will  ye. 
Was  he  there  to  find  out  what  the  nuih  willed? 
Luke  says  that  he  even  now  "  wished  to  release 
Jesus,"  but  what  a  way  was  this  to  seek  tliat 
object! — An  honorable  official  name  he  gave  to 
Jesus — one  according  to  Mattliew,  and  another 
according  to  Mark :  "  Christ"  and  King  of  the 
Jews  ;  but  by  the  hateful  turn  of  speech, 
whom  ye  call  the  King  of  the  Jews,  he  tried, 
in  his  vexation,  to  hint  that  this  prisoner  was, 
after  all,  the  real  King  of  the  peo])lc  with  whom 
he  was  dealing — a  tiing  at  the  Jews,  by  which 
he  would  insult  them  even  while  he  lutmored 
them.  Hut,  though  he  was  vexed  with  tliem 
and  with  himself,  the  deed  was  done;  he  had 
invited  the  crowd  which  the  priests  were  mak- 
ing their  tool  to  decide  what  shotdd  become  of 
Jesus. — And  they  cried  out  again.  The 
])reviotis  cry,  of  preference  for  Barabbas,  is 
implied  in  this  again,  though  Mark  has  not 
mentiiined  it  before,  as  the  others  iiave. — Cru- 
cify him  !  Ni)W  the  fatal  suggestion  came, 
"  If  I  release  IJaral)bas,  what  shall  I  do  with 
Jesus?"  "  Let  them  change  places.  The  pun- 
ishment of  the  robber  would  be  crucifixion;  let 
Jesus  sutler  it,  while  the.  robber  goes  free."  It  is 
true  that  the  proposal  of  crticilixion  wa.s  almost 
implied  in  the  demand  that  Jestis  should  die  at 
the  hands  of  tlie  Roman  (rovernment,  for  that 
was  the  ordinary  penalty  in  cases  where  anything 
of  infamy  was  involved.  But  with  the  crowd, 
with  whom,  apparently,  Barabbas  was  some- 
thing of  a  favorite,  the  proposal  of  an  exchange 
of  places  would  bring  in  the  idea  of  crticifixion  in 
the  form  most  aeceptalilc  to  their  excited  pa.s- 
sions:  "Let  him  ihe  the  death  from  which  we 
save  Barabbas." — The  governor  otight  to  have  ex- 
pected exactly  this  if  he  apjiealed  to  the  people, 
yet  he  seems  to  have  been  shocked  at  it.  Why, 
what  evil  hath  he  done?  A  sincere  but  ill- 
timed  attemi)t  to  reason  with  an  excited  crowd, 
and  that  after  the  main  question  has  been  given 


into  their  hands.  The  governor's  resistance 
comes  too  late ;  he  has  placed  himself  and  his 
decision  in  tlie  people's  power,  and  it  is  vain  to 
think  of  reasoning  now.  Luke  notes  that  this 
is  "the  third  time"  that  he  has  remonstrated. 
He  seems  to  be  much  in  earnest ;  he  adds  again 
that  he  has  ft)un<l  no  cause  of  death  in  Jesus ;  he 
proj)oses  to  "  chastise  him  " — cowardly  offer  to 
compromise  justice  and  half  punish  a  guiltless 
prisoner ! — and  then  to  set  him  free.  Here  the 
sense  of  resj^jusibility  comes  back  upon  Pilate, 
tliough  he  has  tried  to  shake  off  theresp(jnsibil- 
ity  itself,  and  he  shrinks  from  consenting  to  so 
tinjust  a  deed,  though  he  would  consent  to  one 
that  was  only  less  extreme  in  its  injustice. — 
But  all  in  vain;  the  voices  that  shocked  him 
with  their  cry  reftisc  to  give  over.  They  cried 
exceedingly.  So  Matthew  and  Mark.  Not 
the  more  or  the  more  exceedingly.  They 
cried  loud  and  long,  unwilling  to  take  refusal. 
Luke,  "  they  were  instant,"  or  tirgent,  "  witli 
loud  voices,  asking  tliat  he  might  be  crticified." 
Luke  adds,  in  solemn  and  indignant  strain, 
"and  their  voices  prevailed."  —  But  Pilate 
would  still  shrink  h'om  the  responsibility  of 
the  act.  Matthew,  and  he  alone,  tells  how  lie 
washed  his  hands  in  symbol  of  his  innocence 
of  the  condemnation,  and  how  the  Jewish 
nuiltitude  madly  accepted  and  claimed  the 
gttilt  for  themselves  and  their  children.  Mat- 
thew wrote  for  Jewish  Christians,  for  whom 
their  nation's  self-inflicted  curse  had  an  interest 
that  it  did  not  possess  for  the  readers  of  Mark's 
Gos])el.  (Compare  Acts  5  :  28,  where  this  seems 
to  have  been  forgotten.) — After  tiiis  act  Pilate 
considered  his  utmost  to  be  done,  and  fully 
surrendered. 

15.  Here  the  final  act  is  narrated.  The  mo- 
tive is  state<l  again.  Willing,  or  wishing,  to 
content  the  people.  The  phia.xe  is  a  marked 
Latinism  {to  hika)io>t  poi&iai),  being  an  exact 
transference  of  the  Latin  mtisfncrre,  "to  satis- 
fy." Such  phrases  may  seem  to  confirm  the 
traditional  statements  respecting  the  connec- 
tion of  Mark  and  his  Gospel  witli  the  Christian 
comnuinity  at  Rome,  but  they  do  not  really 
prove   more  than   that  the   writer  was  influ- 


234 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XV. 


16  And  the"  soldiers  led  him  away  into  the  hall  called 
Proetoriiuii ;  and  they  called  together  the  whole  band. 

17  And  they  clothed  him  with  purple,  and  platted  a 
crown  of  thorns,  and  put  it  about  his  hfnd; 

18  And  began  to  salute  him,  Hail,  King  of  the  Jews! 

19  And  they  smote  him  on  the  head  with  a  reed,  and 
did  spit'  upon  him,  and,  bowing  thtir  knees,  worship- 
ped him. 


16  And  the  soldiers  led  him  away  within  the  court, 
which  is  the  U^raetorium  ;  and  they  call  together  the 

17  whole -band.     And  they  clothe  him  with  purple,  and 
18 plaiting  a  crown  of  thorns,  they  put  it  on  him;  and 

they  began  to  salute  him.  Hail,  King  of  the  Jews! 

19  And  they  smote  his  head  with  a  reed,  and  did  spit 

upon  him,  and  bowing  their  knees  worshipped  him. 


a  Uatt.  27 :  27  ;  John  18  :  28,  33  ;  19  :  9 6  ch.  U :  65.- 


-1  Or,  •palace 2  Or,  coJiort 


enced  by  the  idioms  of  the  Latin  language. — 
Of  the  act  itself,  both  sides  are  presented :  he 
released  Barabbas  unto  them,  giving  him 
into  the  liands  of  those  who  would  make  great 
rejoicing  over  him,  and  he  delivered  Jesus 
to  be  crucified.  Luke  continues,  in  the 
same  wondering  and  indignant  strain,  "  And 
he  released  him  that  for  sedition  and  murder 
had  been  cast  into  prison,  whom  they  asked 
for;  but  Jesus  he  delivered  up  to  tlieir  will." — 
But  before  the  final  delivering  over  of  Jesus 
came  the  scourging.  So  all  but  Luke,  who 
passes  it  Ijy.  The  word  is  a  Latin  word  again 
{phragellosas,  which  is  merely  the  word  fla/jel- 
lare,  "to  whip,"  "scourge"),  adopted  into 
Greek.  It  is  not  peculiar  to  Mark  here ;  Mat- 
thew has  the  same.  It  is  just  as  well  for  us, 
and  better,  that  tliis  word  fails  now  to  bring  to 
the  imagination  the  full  picture  that  it  might 
suggest.  Scourging  was  a  Roman  punish- 
ment, inflicted  with  knotted  cords  or  thongs 
of  leather,  which  were  sometimes  weighted 
with  bones  or  metal.  The  victim  was  stripped, 
always  as  far  as  to  the  waist  and  sometimes  al- 
together, and  tied  by  tlie  hands  to  a  pillar,  in 
a  bent  posture,  in  which  the  blows  would  fall 
with  the  greatest  possible  force  upon  his  back. 
The  Roman  severity  made  no  provision  for 
limiting  the  number  of  blows  that  might  be 
administered ;  the  Jewish  law,  with  character- 
istic tenderness,  confined  it  to  forty  (Deut.  25 : 3), 
and  in  practice,  for  fear  of  accidental  excess, 
the  number  was  "  forty  stripes  save  one"  (acor. 
11 :  24).  Jesus  was  scourged  under  Roman  reg- 
ulations, not  Jewish ;  and,  as  to  the  severity 
of  the  scourging,  we  can  say  only  that  there 
was  nothing  to  prevent  the  rough  soldier  who 
performed  the  act  from  continuing  till  he  was 
weary  or  till  the  prisoner  fell  exhausted.  Imag- 
ination instinctively  turns  away  from  the  scene, 
and  we  scarcely  thank  those  who,  by  realistic 
descriptions,  succeed  in  exhibiting  before  us  its 
actual  horrors. 

16-23.  JESUS  IS  MOCKED  BY  THE  SOL- 
DIERS, AND  IS  LED  TO  THE  PLACE  OF 
CRUCIFIXION.  Parallels,  Matt.  27  :  27-34 ; 
Luke  23  :  26-33 ;  John  19  :  2-17.— Luke  omits 
the  mocking  by  the  soldiers,  and  adds  an  ac- 


count of  what  Jesus  said  to  certain  women 
who  followed  on  the  way  to  the  place  of  death. 
John  adds  the  last,  but  futile,  effort  of  Pilate  to 
secure  the  release  of  Jesus. 

16-19.  The  soldiers  are  soldiers  of  the 
Roman  army ;  not  themselves  Romans,  but 
mercenary  soldiers,  of  whatever  kind  or  or- 
igin. Many  of  these,  at  least,  were  coarse  and 
degraded  in  the  extreme.  Into  their  hands  the 
prisoner  condemned  to  crucifixion  appears  to 
have  gone,  that  he  might  be  led  to  his  death  ; 
but  in  this  case  they  resolved  to  have  some 
sport  out  of  him  before  he  died.  Such  mock- 
ings  were  frequent,  but  this  was  a  rare  oppor- 
tunity, for  here  was  one  who  could  be  mock- 
ed as  a  disappointed  and  discrowned  King. — 
Into  the  hall  called  Prsctorium.  Rather, 
"  within  the  court,  which  is  the  Proetorium." 
The  word  originally  denoted  the  tent  or  tem- 
porary abode  of  the  praetor,  the  general ;  then 
the  official  residence  of  the  governor  of  a  prov- 
ince ;  then  the  barracks  attached  to  the  gov- 
ernor's residence.  It  was  sometimes  used  of 
any  fine  house,  as  "palace"  now  is.  Here  it 
denotes  the  barracks,  the  place  where  the  sol- 
diers lived.  Into  this  place  (literally,  "within" 
it)  they  took  their  victim  for  abuse.  —  How 
many  were  at  first  concerned  we  are  not  told  ; 
but  they  brought  together  the  whole  band, 
or  cohort,  so  far  as  they  were  within  reach  and 
at  liberty,  to  see  the  sport.  This  mocking  re- 
sembles the  earlier  one  (chap,  u :  es)  in  outward 
appearance,  but  is  to  be  distinguished  from  it. 
That  was  a  Jewish  mocking,  this  a  Gentile ;  that 
was  in  the  presence  of  the  Sanhedrin,  and  per- 
hai3S  some  of  the  members  had  part  in  it — and 
in  tliat  the  Jewish  authorities  rejected  and  in- 
sulted their  own  Messiah — but  this  was  the 
reckless,  unmeaning  work  of  rough  barbarians 
executing  the  will  of  enemies  to  Jesus,  but 
themselves  simply  stupid,  heartless,  and  cruel. 
To  Jesus  himself,  that  was  rtyection,  and  this 
was  abandonment ;  that  had  to  do  with  the 
transactions  that  procured  his  death,  this  was 
but  an  incident,  not  a  decisive  element,  in  his 
way  to  death.  In  heart  and  motive  the  mock- 
ing of  the  soldiers  was  far  less  guilty  than  that 
I  of  the  Sanhedrists.    In  the  same  strain  Jesus 


Ch.  XV.] 


MARK. 


235 


said  to  Pilate,  "He  that  delivered  me  unto 
thee" — i.  e.  the  high  priest,  rei»resentative  of 
the  theocracy  and  the  highly-])rivileged  — 
"hath  the  greater  sin." — The  purple  robe  was 
a  soldier's  cloak  cast  about  him  in  mocking 
suggestion  of  the  idea  of  royalty. — But  more 
clearly  was  that  idea  satirized  and  ridiculed  in 
the  crown — a  wreath  woven  or  twisted  from 
some  thorny  vine  which  cannot  be  very  pos- 
itively identified.  It  is  commonly  taken  to  be 
the  Zizyphiis  spina  Clirkti,  "known  locally  as 
the  nebk,  a  shrub  growing  plentifully  in  the 
valley  of  the  Jordan,  with  branches  pliant 
and  flexible,  and  leaves  of  a  dark  glossy  green 
like  the  ivy,  and  sltarp  prickly  thorns.  The 
shrub  was  likely  enough  to  be  found  in  the 
garden  attached  to  the  Prtetorium"  {Phunptrc). 
Out  of  such  material  was  made  a  caricature, 
but  a  painful  one,  of  a  kingly  crown. — Mat- 
thew adds  tJiat  they  put  a  reed  in  his  right 
hand.  The  word  is  too  vague  for  close  defini- 
tion, but  the  reed  was  meant  for  a  mock-sceptre. — 
All  this  was  simplj'  a  mock-coronation  for  him 
who  was  understood  to  be  claiming  even  yet  to 
be  a  king.  But  is  he  less  a  King  for  having 
worn  the  crown  of  sorrow?  Nay,  but  more. 
The  crown  of  thorns  is  theci-own  of  an  end- 
less dominion  over  men.  "  Via  criicis,  via  lucis" 
("The  way  of  the  cross,  the  way  of  light") 
(phii.  2:&-n). —  And  began  to  salute  him — 
"kneel  to  him,"  Matthew — Hail,  King  of  the 
Jews  !  saluting  with  his  title  the  newly-crown- 
ed Sovereign.  In  the  Jewish  derision  the  taunt 
was,  "  Projihesy  unto  us,  thou  Christ;"  the 
Gentiles  call  him  King  of  the  Jews — a  touch 
of  truth  and  naturalness  in  tlie  titles.  The  sol- 
diers doubtless  felt  an  additional  delight  in  the 
name  they  chose,  because  by  the  use  of  it  they 
were  insulting  the  Jews  as  well  as  Jesus. — The 
sceptre  they  had  given  him  they  now  took 
away,  to  abuse  him  with  it.  His  tied  hands 
could  scarcely  hold  it,  and  they  took  it  and  struck 
him  with  it  on  the  head,  driving  the  tliorns 
into  his  flesh. — Then  tlu'V  did  spit  upon  him 
while  they  knelt  before  him  with  their  false 
adoration. — All  the  verbs  in  verse  19  are  in  the 
imperfect  tense,  indicating  that  the  acts  were 
performed  repeatedly :  thus  they  smote  him 
again  and  again  on  the  head,  and  more  than 
once  kni'lt  before  him,  spitting  upon  him  iis 
they  did  so,  repeating  their  cruelty  and  insult 
as  long  as  they  would. 

Is  not  the  striking  fact  in  all  this  mockery 
that  we  can  see  so  little  a  way  into  the  thoughts 
of  Jesus?  The  scene  is  external  to  him.  With 
the  most  vivid  description  (like  that  of  Farrar), 
still  he  moves  through  the  scene  a  silent  figure, 


suffering  in  mysterious  majesty.  All  that  we 
really  behold  is  One  who  is  absolutely  surren- 
dering himself  to  endure  all,  even  to  the  end, 
and  who,  "  like  a  sheep  dumb  before  his  shear- 
ers, opened  not  his  mouth."  In  Tischendorfs 
Greek  text  there  is  the  record  of  fifty-tliree 
words  spoken  by  him  before  Annas,  of  twenty- 
four  before  Caiaphas,  of  thirty -three  before  the 
full  Sanhedrin,  and  of  one  hundred  and  two  in 
two  private  interviews  with  Pilate.  The  whole 
could  easily  be  spoken  in  the  space  of  two  min- 
utes. Against  these,  remember  the  long  silences 
before  Caiaphas,  Herod,  Pilate,  and  the  total  si- 
lence through  the  scourging  and  the  two  deris- 
ions. By  his  own  dignity  and  patience  his 
thoughts  are  closed  to  us.  We  see  the  scene 
move  on  about  him,  anil  the  men  who  wrong 
and  torment  him  we  can  understand ;  but  the 
soul  of  the  sufferer  himself  is,  as  it  were,  veiled. 

It  is  here  that  John  ( la :  4-15)  tells  of  a  final 
effort  on  the  part  of  Pilate  to  save  the  life  of 
Jesus — an  effort  in  which  new  motives  appear, 
blended  with  the  ones  that  are  already  famil- 
iar. First  is  pity :  he  leads  forth  the  sufferer 
and  shows  him  to  the  people,  saying,  "  Behold 
the  man,"  that  they  may  feel  that  he  has  endured 
enough  and  may  at  last  be  willing  to  let  him 
go.  Then  he  hears  that  Jesus  has  claimed  to 
be  the  Son  of  God ;  at  which,  fears,  half  super- 
stitious, arise  in  his  mind,  and  he  takes  Jesus 
aside  to  question  him  as  to  whence  and  what 
he  is.  Jesus  tells  him  nothing,  but  a  strange 
fear  abides  with  him  and  prompts  fresli  efforts 
for  release.  He  again  tries  to  rally  the  national 
feeling  to  Jesus  as  the  King  of  the  Jews,  but  is 
thwarted  by  their  absolute  renunciation  of  na- 
tional hope  and  acceptance  of  Caesar  as  their 
only  king.  They  have  already  warned  Pilate 
that  to  let  Jesus  go  would  be  taken  as  disloyalty 
to  Cresar;  and  now,  when  they  ciy,  "We  have 
no  king  but  Caesar,"  he  yields  and  gives  Jesus 
over  to  their  will.  This  entire  effort  on  the 
part  of  Pilate  took  place  some  time  after  he  had 
"washed  his  hands  of  the  whole  matter:"  his 
conscience  would  not  let  him  rest,  even  though 
he  had  seemed  to  clear  himself  of  responsibil- 
ity. The  feeling  of  all  later  time — that  Pilate 
could  not,  and  did  not,  wash  away  his  own 
responsibility  and  guilt— was  already  Pilate's 
own  feeling.  Of  his  subsequent  history  little 
is  really  known,  but  tradition  has  represented 
his  later  ye:u-s  as  embittered  by  intolerable  and 
incurable  remorse  for  this  one  terrible  act. 

20.  The  soldiers  were  satis(ie(l  at  length  with 
their  cruel  sport,  and  took  otT  the  robes  of 
mock-royalty,  that  they  might  proceed  in  earn- 
est toward  his  death. — All  that  we  know  of  his 


236 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XV. 


20  And  when  they  had  mocked"  him,  they  took  ofif 
the  purple  from  him,  and  put  his  own  clothes  on  him, 
and  led  him  out  to  crucify  him. 

21  And  they  compel  one  Simon  a  Cyrenian,  who 
passed  by,  coming  out  of  the  country,  the  father  of 
Alexander  and  Rufus,  to  bear  his  cross. 


20  And  when  they  had  mocked  him,  they  took  off 
from  him  the  purple,  and  put  on  him  his  garments. 
And  they  lead  him  out  to  crucify  him. 

21  And  they  'compel  one  passing  by,  Mmon  of  Cyrene, 
coming  from  the  country,  the  father  of  Alexander 
and  Itufus,  to  go  with  ihem,  that  he  might  bear  his 


a  ch.  10  :  34 ;  Job  13  :  9  ;  P8.  35  :  16 ;  Matt.  20  :  19  ;  Luke  22  :  63 ;  23  :  11,  36.- 


own  clothes,  which  they  now  put  upon  him 
again,  rehites  to  the  under-coat  (chiton),  whicli 
John  tells  us  was  seamless  and  "woven  from 
the  top  throughout "  (John  19 :  23).  It  was  a  coat, 
not  a  "robe,"  that  was  seamless.  If  we  judge 
from  the  description  that  Josephus  gives  of  a 
similar  garment  for  the  high  priest  {Ant.  3.  7.  4), 
we  shall  infer  that  this  tunic,  or  under-coat,  was 
intended  to  be  drawn  on  over  the  head — a  process 
how  painful,  after  the  scourging  and  the  other 
abuse,  we  forbear  to  imagine. — When  the  vic- 
tim was  again  dressed,  they  led  him  out  on 
the  way  to  death.  But  it  was  nothing  new  :  to 
him  the  life  of  the  last  year  had  been  avowedly 
the  way  to  death  (Matt.  i6 :  21) ;  and  much  longer, 
in  his  own  heart,  had  he  been  looking  toward 
the  cross.  He  "came,"  in  fact,  "to  give  his 
life  a  ransom  for  many"  (Mark  10 h5).  It  was 
known  from  eternity  that  when  God  should  be 
incarnate  in  a  sinful  race,  the  Incarnate  One 
would  be  killed  by  the  rage  of  sin.  It  was 
known,  also,  that  only  by  means  of  such  death 
could  the  counsel  of  saving  love  be  fulfilled 
and  the  Incarnate  God  become  a  perfect  Sav- 
iour. So  the  cross  was  no  surprise  to  him  who 
endured  it,  and  the  actual  experience  was  only 
the  fulfilment  of  his  constant  expectations. 

21.  John  says  that  Jesus  "  went  out  bearing 
the  cross  for  himself,"  the  customary  way  for 
criminals  to  go  to  their  death.  (See  Matt.  10  : 
38,  where  this  moment  is  anticipated  and  the 
lot  of  the  disciple,  in  fellowship  with  the  Mas- 
ter's sufferings,  is  pointed  out.)  But  the  syn- 
optists  all  tell  how  the  cross  was  laid  upon  an- 
other, to  be  borne  after  Jesus ;  commonly  ex- 
plained by  supposing  that  Jesus  was  sinking 
beneatli  the  burden,  so  that  it  was  feared  that 
he  could  not  carry  it  to  the  appointed  place. 
The  conjecture  is  perfectly  reasonable,  and  may 
be  accepted  as  probably  the  true  explanation. 
— They  compel.  The  word  is  used  only  here 
and  at  Matt.  27  :  32  (parallel)  and  5  :  41.  It  is 
the  word  that  refers  to  enforced  service  exacted 
by  the  government.  This  was  an  official  party, 
being  executioners  of  the  Roman  power,  and 
they  "impress"  this  man  into  their  service. — 
One  Simon,  .  .  .  who  passed  by — i  e.  one 
whom  they  accidentally  met. — A  Cyrenian. 
Cyrene  lay  on  the  southern  coast  of  the  Med- 
iterranean, westward  from  Egyjit.    Many  Jews 


dwelt  there,  who  were  represented  in  the  as- 
sembly on  the  day  of  Pentecost  (Acts  2: 10),  and 
among  the  pioneers  of  missionary  work  to  the 
Gentiles  (Acts  u  :  20).  Men  from  the  same  place 
were  among  the  opponents  of  Stephen  (Acts  6 : 9). 
— Coming  out  of  the  country  toward  the  city ; 
so  that  the  company  did  not  overtake  him,  but 
met  him.  No  inferences  can  be  drawn  as  to 
the  place  or  the  distance  from  which  he  had 
come,  excejit  that  it  is  jjresumable  that  he  was 
in  the  city  at  the  time  of  the  passover,  on  the 
previous  evening. — The  father  of  Alexander 
and  Rufus.  The  only  hint  of  any  kind  as  to 
the  personal  life  and  relations  of  this  Simon ; 
and  this  is  peculiar  to  Mark.  Whoever  Alex- 
ander and  Rufus  may  have  been  —  and  the 
names  are  so  common  as  to  reveal  nothing  of 
their  personality — they  must  have  been  well- 
known  men  among  the  earliest  readers  of 
Mark's  Gospel.  There  is  no  Alexander  in  the 
New  Testament  who  can  be  identified  with  this 
one;  there  is  a  Rufus  in  Rom.  16  :  13,  whose 
name  suggests  some  interesting  possibilities. 
Somewhere  he  had  been  intimately  associated 
with  Paul,  and  so  had  his  mother,  who  was 
regarded  by  Paul  with  a  truly  filial  aifection : 
"  Salute  Rufus  chosen  in  the  Lord,  and  his 
mother  and  mine."  "  Men  of  Cyrene  "  were 
among  the  founders  of  the  church  in  Antioch 
(Actsu  :  20),  where  Paul  spent,  immediately  after 
the  church  was  founded,  the  first  year  of  his 
active  Christian  service.  It  is  a  reasonable  con- 
jecture that  Rufus  was  one  of  these,  well  known 
among  the  Christians,  and  especially  among 
the  Gentile  Christians,  and  that  Paul's  intimacy 
with  him  and  his  mother  dated  from  that  time. 
Moreover,  it  was  to  Antioch,  just  after  the  end 
of  that  first  year,  that  Mark  accompanied  Paul 
(Acts  12: 25);  and  there  he  may  have  familiarly 
known  Rufus  and  his  mother,  and  perhaps 
Alexander  with  them. — That  Simon  was  at 
this  time  a  disciple  of  Jesus  and  was  laid  hold 
of  for  that  reason  is  a  groundless  conjecture; 
but  that  he  afterward  became  a  disciple  and 
was  widely  known  as  a  Christian  is  implied  in 
Mark's  manner  of  speaking  of  him. — In  the  im- 
pressing of  this  man,  met  by  chance,  there  was 
something  of  the  same  wantonness  that  had 
appeared  in  the  derision :  there  were  men 
enough   who  might  bear  the  cross,  but  here 


Ch.  XV.] 


MARK. 


237 


22  And  they"  brinp  him  unto  the  place  Golgotha, 
which  is,  being  interpreted,  Tlie  place  of  a  skull. 

2:h  x\ndthey  gave  him  to  driuk  wine  mingled  with 
myrrh :  but  he  received  it  not. 


22 cross.    And  they  bring  him  unto  the  place  (Solgotha, 

which   is,  being  interpreted.  The   place  of  a  skull. 

23 And  they  oUered  him  wine   mingled  with  myrrh: 


a  Matt.  27  :  3.1 ;  Luke  23  :  33  ;  John  19  :  17,  etc. 


was  a  chance  comer,  perhaps  odd  in  garb  to 
the  eye.s  of  the  soldiers — possibly  a  slave — and 
he  was  the  man  for  their  purpose.  It  would  be 
pleasant  to  imagine  that  by  this  unexpected 
and  unique  relation  to  Jesus  the  man  was 
brought  into  the  faith. 

Here  Luke  speaks  of  the  multitude  that  fol- 
lowed, and  especially  of  the  women,  whose 
hearts  overflowed  in  teai-s  of  pity,  and  of  the 
Lord's  answer  to  them.  He  was  still  the  con- 
scious Messiah,  knowing  himself  and  knowing 
what  all  this  meant.  No  pity  wotild  he  accept ; 
but  he  foresaw  what  this  deed  would  cost,  both 
to  the  guilty,  and  to  the  innocent  whose  desti- 
nies were  wrapi)ed  up  with  theirs,  and  he  called 
for  pity  upon  these,  in  view  of  the  impending 
woe. 

22.  The  place  of  crucifixion  is  by  Matthew 
and  Mark  called  Golgotha,  which  is  inter- 
preted as  meaning  The  place  of  a  skull.  In 
John  the  order  is  inverted  :  "  A  place  called  the 
place  of  a  skull,  which  is  called  in  Hebrew,  Gol- 
gotha ;"  in  Luke  it  is  simply  "  the  place  which 
is  called  Calvary" — i.  e.  "The  skull."'  From 
the  Latin  word  used  in  the  Vulgate  to  translate 
kranioii,  "skull" — namely,  cnlvnrin;  used  in 
all  the  Gospels — comes  the  popular  name  "  Cal- 
vary," which  is  not,  however,  in  any  sense  an 
original  or  a  genuine  name  for  the  place. — 
Why  it  was  called  "  Golgotha  "  or  "  The  skull " 
can  only  be  conjectured.  It  was  not  named 
"The  place  of  skulls,"  and  that  fact  refutes  the 
theory  that  it  was  a  spot  where  skulls  of  ex- 
ecuted criminals  lay  about ;  yet  the  theory  needs 
no  refutation,  for  the  Jews  would  not  thus  visit 
a  locality  so  defiled.  ^lore  plausible  is  the 
conjecture  that  it  was  a  low,  round,  bare  hill. 
The  place  is  never  called  a  hill,  it  is  trtie ;  but 
this  seems  the  most  tiatural  way  to  account  for 
the  name.  It  should  be  remembered,  however, 
that  localities  are  constantly  named,  in  poptdar 
speech,  from  i)assing  events  or  circumstances, 
and  that  tlie  names  remain  when  the  occasions 
have  long  been  forgotten.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  Golgotha  was  the  common  place  of  execu- 
tiim,  and  there  is  a  certain  amount  of  evidence 
against  it  in  the  fact  that  Joseph's  garden,  or 
orchard,  was  close  by,  or,  as  John  expresses  it, 
"  in  the  place  where  he  was  crucified."  It  has 
been  suggested  as  possible  that  the  spot  was 
chosen  by  the  priests  as  a  deliberate  insult  to 


Joseph,  one  of  their  own  Sanhedrin,  who  had 
not  consented  to  their  deed  and  was  periiaps 
suspected  of  a  regard  for  Jesus. — The  locality 
itself  is  altogether  unknown.  It  was  outside 
the  city,  as  the  language  of  John  19  :  20  proves, 
and  as  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  a.ssumes  that 
his  readers  know  {Heb.  13 :  12).  Researches  on  the 
stibject  have  been  numerous  and  persevering, 
but  have  develoi)ed  ncjthing  certain  and  trust- 
worthy. "  The  data  for  anything  api)roaching 
certainty  are  wholly  wanting ;  and,  in  all  prob- 
ability, the  actual  spot  lies  buried  under  tlie 
mountainous  rubbish-heaps  of  the  ten-times- 
taken  city  "  (Farrar). — The  almost  com])lete 
obliteration  of  sacred  sites  in  connection  with 
the  ministry  of  our  Lord  is  a  fact  that  cannot 
fail  to  have  a  meaning.  The  identification  of 
the  general  scenes  of  his  work  is  perfect,  but 
minute  identifications  of  particular  places  fail, 
in  almost  every  case,  to  be  satisfactory.  Chris- 
tianity is  a  religion  that  does  not  need  help 
from  sacred  places  or  from  holy  relics.  Tlie 
principle  of  John  4  :  20-24  sets  it  free  from  all 
dependence  upon  such  means  of  attracting  and 
attaching  worshipjiers  to  itself  The  natural  in- 
terest of  men  in  sacred  places  has  been  suf- 
ficiently served,  in  divine  providence,  by  the 
remarkable  preservation  of  Palestine  in  an  un- 
changed state.  As  for  the  natural  interest  of 
men  in  relics,  it  is  innocent  until  it  interferes 
with  the  service  of  religion  to  man  ;  there  it  is 
unchristian,  and  is  to  be  driven  out  by  better 
knowledge  of  Christ. 

23.  The  draught  that  was  now  offered  was  a 
benumbing  draught.  It  was  rarely  that  the  Ro- 
mans did  so  merciful  a  deed  to  a  dying  criminal, 
but  the  Jews  had  it  for  a  custom  thus  to  relieve 
the  final  agonies ;  and  it  is  said  that  the  wealthy 
ladies  of  Jerusalem  were  accustomed  to  provide, 
at  their  own  expense,  the  stupefying  draught  for 
all  who  were  there  to  be  crucified.  ^Matthew 
calls  it  "  wine  mingled  with  gall ;"  Mark,  with 
myrrh.  It  is  likely  that  Matthew  is  more  strict- 
ly correct,  but  either  name  would  be  understood 
to  refer  to  the  well-known  aid  to  unconscious- 
ness in  the  sufferer. — Probably  the  other  two 
suff'erers  that  day  took  it,  but  Jesus  received 
it  not.  Matthew,  "  when  he  had  tasted  it,  he 
would  not  drink."  The  tasting  may  have  been 
the  act  of  extreme  physical  exhaustion  and 
thirst,  in  which  any  offer  of  drink  was  for  the 


238 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XV. 


24  And  when  they  had  crucified  him,  they  parted"  I  24  but  he  received  it  not.  And  they  crucify  him, 
his  garments,  casting  lots  upon  them,  wliat  every  man  |  and  part  his  garments  among  them,  casting  lots 
should  take.  I  25  upon  them,  what  each  should  take.    And  it  was  the 

20  And  it  was  the  third  hour ;  and  they  crucified  him.  I 


moment  welcome;  in  which  case,  the  refusal 
to  (io  more  than  taste  followed  upon  the  recog- 
nition of  the  purpose  of  the  draught.  Or  the 
tasting  may  have  been  a  recognition  of  the 
friendly  purjiose  of  those  who  ofi'ered  the 
draught,  while  the  refusal  was  a  declaration 
that  such  kindness  was  not  for  liim.  In  any 
case,  the  refusal  expressed  his  determination  to 
meet  death  with  all  his  powers  in  exercise.  No 
opiate  should  disqualify  him  eitlier  for  suffer- 
ing in  obedience  to  the  will  of  God  or  for  look- 
ing up  with  undimmed  vision  into  his  Father's 
face.  We  speak  of  his  refusal  as  "  an  act  of  the 
sublimest  heroism  "  (Farrar) :  such  it  is ;  and  yet 
we  may  see  how  instinctively  we  associate  all 
that  is  noblest  with  Jesus,  and  require  it  of  him, 
if  we  ask  ourselves  how  it  would  have  been  if 
lie  had  been  willing  to  die  under  the  influence 
of  some  narcotic  drug.  Would  not  the  whole 
signiflcance  of  his  death  be  gone?  There  would 
have  been  self-indulgence  and  self-.sparing  in  the 
act,  and  no  longer  could  we  speak  of  him  as  giv- 
ing himself,  with  perfect  self-surrender,  to  do 
and  suffer  for  the  salvation  of  man.  One  who 
would  consent  to  die  that  death  in  stupefaction 
could  be  no  Saviour. 

24-41.  THE  CRUCIFIXION  AND  DEATH 
OF  JESUS.  Parallels,  Matt.  27  :  35-56 ;  Luke 
23  :  33-49  ;  John  19  :  18-37. 

34.  Crucified  him.  Crucifixion  was  a  com- 
mon form  of  execution  among  the  Romans,  the 
Carthaginians,  and  some  other  nations,  which 
confined  it  for  the  most  part  to  slaves  and  to 
malefactors  of  the  worst  kind.  The  cross  was 
of  various  forms,  sometimes  like  an  X,  some- 
times like  a  T,  and  sometimes  prolonged  like 
the  Latin  cross,  which  is  familiar  to  all  modern 
eyes.  In  this  case  the  ordinary  pictures  cor- 
rectly represent  the  form,  as  the  fact  that  the 
inscription  was  put  "  over  his  head  "  assures  us. 
The  first  act  in  crticifixion  was  to  lay  the  cross 
on  the  groimd  and  nail  or  bind  the  victim  to  it; 
"  the  latter  was  the  more  painful  method,  as  the 
sufferer  was  left  to  die  of  hunger."  The  lan- 
gtiage  of  Thomas  (John  20 :  25)  proves  that  in  this 
case  the  body  was  fastened  to  the  cross  by  nails. 
Through  the  hands  the  nails  were  driven,  and 
through  the  feet,  either  separately  or  crossed. 
Then  the  cross  was  raised  and  set  in  the  hole 
in  the  earth  that  had  been  dug  for  it,  and  the 
victim  was  left  to  his  agony.    A  wooden  sup- 


I)ort  between  the  legs  partly  sustained  the 
weight  of  the  body.  The  cross  was  not  high, 
as  in  many  pictures  of  the  crucifixion  :  it  was 
only  so  high  that  the  victim  was  raised  a  little 
from  the  earth.— The  physical  agonies  of  cruci- 
fixion were  such  that  we  may  well  shrink  from 
any  attempt  to  portray  them.  Victims  were 
sometimes  known  to  linger  for  nine  days  on 
the  cross,  enduring  such  a  complication  of  tor- 
ments as  we  scarcely  have  power  to  imagine. 
(Whoever  wishes  a  horribly  realistic  picture 
of  the  scene  may  find  it  in  Farrar's  Life  of 
Christ,  chap.  Ixi.) — The  clothes  of  the  victim 
were  given  to  the  soldiers  who  did  the  work 
of  the  hour.  The  soldiers  must  stay  and  guard 
the  place,  lest  there  should  be  even  now  a  rescue 
of  the  Crucified  One :  such  was  the  Roman  cus- 
tom, for  rescues  were  not  unknown.  The 
soldiers  were  four  in  number  (john  19:23).  A 
centurion  also  was  present,  in  charge  of  them. 
W^hatever  there  may  have  been  of  his  clothes 
they  divided  into  fotir  equal  parts,  but  for  the 
seamless  coat  (not  "robe")  they  cast  lots;  in 
which  John  saw  the  fulfilment  of  David's  lan- 
guage in  Ps.  22  :  IS.— To  all  the  disciples,  ap- 
parently, the  twenty-second  psalm  stood  as  an 
inspired  anticipation  of  this  scene,  even  down 
to  minttte  details.  It  is  not  necessary  to  sup- 
pose that  they  were  at  the  time  aware  of  the 
close  and  startling  resemblance,  but  as  they 
thought  it  over  the  fact  became  plain  to 
them. 

25.  The  mention  of  the  hour  is  peculiar  to 
Mark.  In  the  Jewish  reckoning  the  hours  were 
counted  and  numbered  from  sunrise  to  sunset, 
and  an  hour  was  a  variable  division  of  time, 
being  always  a  twelfth  part  of  the  natural  or 
solar  day,  which  varied  with  the  season.  Tlie 
sixth  hour  was  always  at  noon,  but  the  third 
hour,  €.  g.,  was  nearer  to  noon  in  the  winter 
than  in  the  summer.  In  April  it  was  a  little 
earlier  than  9  A.  m. — Not  much  is  known  as  to 
the  appliances  possessed  by  the  Jews  of  that 
age  for  the  measurement  of  time.  It  is  certain, 
liowever,  that  no  watches  existed,  and  that 
clocks,  even  of  an  imperfect  kind,  were  not 
very  numerous.  Perfect  accuracy  in  the  re- 
]iorting  of  the  time  of  day  is  not  to  be  ex- 
pected from  such  men  as  the  apostles,  in  such 
circumstances ;  and  there  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  they  would  be  inspired  to  make  more 


Ch.  XV.] 


MARK. 


239 


26  And    the  superscription  of   his   accusation  was 
written  over,  thk  KiN(i  oK  thk  jews. 

27  And  with  him  they  crucify  two  thieves;  the  one 
on  his  right  hand,  and  the  other  on  his  left. 


26  third  hour,  and  they  crucified  him.    And  the  super- 
scription of  his  accusation  wa.s  written   over,  the 

27  KlN<i  UK  THE  JKWS.    And  with  him  they  crucify  two 
robbers ;  one  on  his  right  hand,  and  one  on  liis  lefH 


eut  authorities  insert  ver.  2S  And  the  acriptu 


e  was  fulfilled,  which  saiih,  And  he  was  reckoned  tsith  transgrcAsora,    See 
Luke  xxii.  'M. 


exact  statements  of  the  time  of  day  than  they 
were  naturally  able  to  make. — John  speaks  of 
the  hour  dilierently  from  the  synoptists,  say- 
ing that  "about  the  si.xth  hour"  Jesus  was 
still  in  the  last  interview  with  Pilate.  The 
ordinary  explanation  is,  however,  that  he  was 
measuring  time  according  to  the  Roman  meth- 
od, which  numbered  the  hours  from  nndnight 
to  nddday. 

36.  It  is  uncertain  whether  it  was  customary 
thus  to  append  to  the  cross  the  statement  of  the 
offender's  crime.  John  calls  the  ^>upe^scrip- 
tion  a  fitlus,  the  word  being  the  Latin  word 
lituliix  ("  asuperscription,  or  title  ")  transferred  to 
the  Greek ;  but  evidence  is  wanting  to  show  that 
the  word  was  commonly  used  of  such  an  inscrip- 
tion. There  is  no  indication  thatsuchatitlewas 
put  over  the  other  two  crosses. — The  super- 
scription of  his  accusation.  Rather,  "of  his 
crime"  or  of  the  cause  of  his  death.  The  inscrip- 
tion is  given  in  four  forms  by  the  four  evangelists : 
Mark,  The  King  of  the  Jews  ;  Luke,  "This 
(is)  the  King  of  the  Jews;"  Matthew,  "This  is 
Jesus  the  King  of  the  Jews ;"  John,  "  Jesus  the 
Nazarene  the  King  of  the  Jews."  The  differ- 
ence is  partly  due,  perhaps,  to  the  fact  that  the 
inscrijition  was  written  in  three  languages 
(J()hn)^n  Hebrew,  Latin,  and  Greek  —  and 
that  it  may  thus  have  been  present  in  various 
forms  to  various  minds.  It  is  partly  due,  also, 
to  the  fact  that  the  evangelists  were  not  writing 
in  the  style  of  legal  documents,  and  were  not 
striving  for  absolute  accuracy  in  quotation.  All 
that  they  cared  to  do  was  to  record  the  sub- 
stance of  what  wa.s  written  over  their  Master's 
head.  Each  gave  the  substance  of  it  as  he  re- 
mend)ered  it,  and  all  to  the  same  effect. — If  any 
one  of  the  four  reporters  is  to  be  regarded  as 
the  most  correct  here,  we  would  naturally  say 
that  it  was  John,  whom  we  know  to  have  stood 
close  beside  the  cross  (Johui9:26).  From  him, 
also,  we  learn  of  the  complaint  of  the  enemies 
of  Jesus  at  wliat  Pilate  had  written  for  the  in- 
scrii^tion,  us  seeming  to  l)ear  testimony  to  his  real 
kingsliip,  while  they  wished  only  his  claim  of 
kingship  to  go  on  record,  and  liow  Pilate,  al- 
ready angry  both  at  them  and  at  himself  would 
do  nothing  to  please  them  and  left  the  inscrip-  j 
tion  as  it  was.  Perhaps  his  refusal  had  in  it 
something  of  the  pitying  spirit  of  his  plea, 
"  Behold  the  man  ;"  as  if  he  were  unwilling  to 


add  anything  to  the  terrible  sum  of  insult  that 
was  already  heaped  upon  Jesus.  Perhaps,  too, 
there  was  a  lingering  conviction  that,  after  all, 
in  a  deep  but  mysterious  sense,  he  truly  was  a 

king  (John  18:37). 

27.  And  with  him  they  crucify  two 
thieves,  or,  rather,  "robbers."  These  have 
beeit  mentioned  already  by  Luke  as  conducted 
with  Jesus  to  the  place  of  cruciiixion.  He  calls 
tliem  merely  "  malefactors;"  John  does  not  say 
what  they  were ;  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  more 
specifically,  they  are  "  robbers,"  not  thieves, 
under  which  inadequate  and  misleading  itame 
their  true  character  has  long  been  concealed. 
They  were  men  with  a  record  like  that  of 
Barabbas — men  who  had  been  engaged  in  some 
kind  of  violence,  for  which  they  were  now  suf- 
fering the  penalty  that  according  to  law  they 
had  deserved  (Luke2.-?:4i). — It  is  possible,  of 
course,  that  the  violence  in  which  they  had 
taken  part  was  not  altogether  of  the  most 
blameworthy  kind,  for  impulses  of  the  better 
class  sometimes  entered  into  the  motives  that 
caused  the  tumtdts  of  those  days.  In  one  of 
the  two  a  better  heart  did  appear,  anil  in  such 
manner  as  to  suggest  at  least  some  degree  of 
previous  thoughtfulness  in  the  man. — Doubt- 
less it  was  considered  by  the  priests  a  happy 
thought  to  complete  the  degradation  of  the 
dishonored  "King"  by  thus  placing  him  in 
death  between  two  violent  criminals.  The  cen- 
tral place  was  meant  for  a  caricature  upon  the 
idea  of  a  place  of  honor;  not  unlikely  his  cross 
was  a  little  taller  than  the  others.  They  were 
willing  to  exalt  him  among  robbers  and  to  let 
him  enjoy  a  pre-eminence  on  the  cross. — It  is 
liere,  after  mentioning  the  actual  crucifixion, 
that  Luke  records  the  wonderful  saying  that  fell 
from  the  lips  of  Jesus — "Father,  forgive  them, 
for  they  know  not  what  they  do" — uttered,  ap- 
parently, as  they  were  raising  the  cross  to  its 
position.  It  was  the  first  of  the  seven  words 
from  the  cross,  and  it  was  a  new  voice  under 
the  sun  that  spoke  it.  The  long  silence  had 
betokened  self-conmiand,  but  the  breaking  of 
the  silence  showed  that  the  self-command  was 
spiritual  and  was  perfect,  no  unlovely  passion 
blending  with  the  agony.  But  here  was  more 
than  self-command  :  here  was  utmost  Love,  un- 
altered by  utmost  outrage  and  misery,  breath- 
ing out  the  spirit  of  forgiveness  even  now,,  and 


240 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XV. 


28  And  the  scripture"  was  fulfilled,  which  saith, 
And  he  was  numbered  with  the  transgressors. 

2w  And  they'  that  passed  by  railed  on  him,  wagging 
their  heads,  and  saying,  Ah,  thou'  that  destroyest  the 
temple,  and  buildest  ii  in  three  days, 

3u  Save  thyseil,  and  come  down  from  the  cross. 

31  Likewise  also  the  chiel'  priests,  mocking,  said 
among  themselves  with  the  scribes,  lie  saved  others; 
himself  he  cannot  save. 


29  And  they  that  passed  by  railed  on  hira,  wagging 
their  heads,  and  saying,  Hal  thou  that  destroyest 

30  the  Hemple,  and  buildest  it  in  three  days,  save  thy- 

31  self,  and  come  down  from  the  cross.  In  like  man- 
ner also  the  chief  priests  mocking  him  among  them- 
selves with  the  scribes  said,  He  saved  others  ;  ^'him- 


alsa.  53:12.... iPs.  22:7 c  ch.  14:58;  Jahn2:lU.- 


-1  Or,  sanctuary ...  .i  Or,  can  he  not  save  Jiimsel/t 


recognizing  the  ignorance  that  rendered  pardon 
pos.sible  (i  Tim.  1:13),  though  it  did  not  alter  the 
malignity  of  the  sin.  (See  the  same  principle 
in  1  Cor.  2:8.) 

It  was  by  a  natural  thought  that  verse  28  was 
added.  And  the  scripture  was  fulfilled 
Avhich  saith,  Aud  he  was  numbered  Avith 
the  transgressors,  especially  since  Jesus  had 
said,  as  he  was  about  going  to  Gethsemane, 
that  this  saying  was  to  be  fulfilled  in  him 
(Luke  2L':  37).  But  the  verse  was  unquestionably 
added  by  some  later  hand  than  that  of  Mark, 
and  is  rightly  omitted  by  the  revisers.  The 
falling  out  of  this  verse  from  the  text  leaves 
the  double  quotation  in  chap.  1  :  2,  3  tlie  only 
quotation  from  the  prophets  made  by  Mark 
himself  in  the  whole  Gospel. 

29-32.  Here  is  a  third  derision.  First  the 
Sanhedrists  and  then  the  soldiers  mocked  him 
— i.  e.  first  the  Jews  and  then  the  Gentiles — 
and  now  a  miscellaneous  crowd  taunts  him,  in 
whicli  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  both  present,  but 
with  Jewish  voices  prevailing.  Tlie  synoptists 
all  describe  this  derision  in  detail,  but  John 
mentions  it  not  at  all.  Luke  begins  with  "  the 
people  stood  beholding :"  he  makes  the  people 
to  be  spectators,  of  whose  feeling  he  says  noth- 
mg  (so  the  best  text,  represented  by  the  Re- 
vision), and  makes  the  Sanhedrists  and  the 
soldiers  tlie  chief  tormentors.  There  is  noth- 
ing inconsistent  with  this  in  the  other  Gos- 
pels, but  Matthew  and  Mark  tell  of  passers-by 
who  reviled  him,  picturing  bcftjre  us  a  careless, 
lounging  multitude  who  seized  the  opportunity 
for  cruel  sport.  We  must  remember  that  the 
cross  was  so  low  that  the  sufferer  was  actually 
among  his  tormentors,  able  to  look  directly 
into  their  eyes,  and  even  liable  to  abuse  from 
their  hands ;  although  of  sucli  abuse,  in  our 
Saviour's  case,  tliere  is  liapi)ily  no  record. — 
They  that  passed  by  railed  on  him,  wag- 
ging their  heads.  Shaking  their  heads  in 
scorn,  and  perhaps  enforcing  the  expression  of 
their  triumph  and  contempt  by  gestures  and 
grimaces.  (See  Ps.  22  :  7.)  This,  in  many, 
was  genuine  pa.ssionate  hatred,  and  in  others 
it  was  unbridled  wantonness.  In  either  case 
there  would  be  no  limit  to  the  intensity  of 


their  derision.  —  The  interjection  (Ah,  Greek 
Oua)  is  used  here  alone  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  should  perhaps  be  classed  with  Mark's 
quoting  of  "  Epliphatha,"  and  his  other  quo- 
tations of  the  very  W(.irds.  Perhaps  the  re- 
visers have  represented  it  in  the  best  way  by 
"Ha!"  In  the  classics,  it  expresses  wonder; 
here,  bitter  irony. — The  reproach  is  that  which 
was  present  in  the  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin 
informally  a.ssembled.  Thou  that  destroy- 
est the  temple,  and  buildest  it  in  three 
days.  Irony  false  as  well  as  cruel ;  but  that 
made  no  difference  to  the  tormentors.  If  he 
had  claimed  such  power,  he  surely  need  not 
be  there  upon  the  cross — unless,  indeed,  he 
was  the  deceiver  that  they  called  him.  One 
who  had  made  such  claims  could  certainly 
save  himself;  and  any  one  who  could  save 
himself  from  such  a  death  would  assuredly  do 
it.  Who  would  not  come  down  from  the 
cross  if  he  had  the  power? — This  was  the 
taunt  of  the  passers-by  —  sharp  enough  and 
cruel,  but  far  surpassed  in  sharjmess  by  the 
next,  cutting  and  cruel  both  from  its  source 
and  from  its  substance.  The  group  is  sketched 
by  Matthew  and  Mark.  Likewise  also  the 
chiefpriests,  mocking,  said  among  them- 
selves with  the  scribes.  Matthew,  "and 
eldei-s."  This  was  not  addressed  to  Jesus,  it 
was  a  mocking  conversation,  loud  enougli,  no 
doubt,  for  him  to  overhear;  an  insulting  by- 
play between  the  religious  leaders  of  Israel,  re- 
vealing their  utter  hardness  and  heartlessness 
by  "  mocking  him  among  themselves,"  as  in 
the  Revision,  for  their  common  amusement. 
But  sharper  was  their  derision  in  itself  than 
even  their  personality  could  have  made  it. — 
He  saved  others;  himself  he  cannot  save 
— a  charge  in  which  even  the  tenderness  and  the 
power  that  were  so  abundantly  manifested  in 
his  works  were  turned  against  him.  "Is  all 
that  power  of  no  avail  to  him  now  in  his  ex- 
tremity?" To  one  wlio  heard  would  arise  the 
remembrance  of  his  innumerable  acts  of  heal- 
ing, and  of  those  whom  he  had  called  back 
from  death ;  "  and  yet  he  cannot  save  him- 
self"! There  seems  to  be  implied  a  suspicion 
that  there  must  be  something  wrong    about 


Ch.  XV.] 


MARK. 


241 


32  I,et  Christ  the  King  of  Israel  descend  now  from 
the  cross,  that  we  may  see,"  and  believe.  And  they 
that  weie  crucitied  with  him  reviled  him. 


32 self  he  cannot  save.  Let  the  Christ,  the  King  of 
Israel,  now  come  down  from  the  cross,  that  we  may 
see  and  believe.  And  they  that  were  crucified  with 
him  reproached  him. 


a  Rom.  3  :  3 ;  2  Tim.  2  :  13. 


power  that  thus  deserts  its  possessor  in  time  of 
need — either  a  hint  of  fraud  in  the  mighty 
works,  or  ahnost  a  renewal  of  the  old  accu- 
sation, "  lie  ca.steth  out  demons   through   the 
prince  of  the  demons."     "  If  his  power  deserts 
him    now,   it  is  condemned  as  evil    power." 
According  to  Matthew,  the  revilers  added  the 
appropriate  conclusion  to  this  charge,  quoting 
loosely,  but  unmistakably,  from   the  twenty- 
second  psalm :   "  He  trusted  in  God ;   let  him 
deliver  him  now"  (full  emphasis  on  "now"), 
"  if  he  dcsireth  him  :  for  he  said,  I  am  the  Son 
of  God."     This  de.sertion  to  suffering  and  death 
was,  in  their  sight,  a  perfect  proof  that  there 
could  be  no  friendship  or  fellowship  between 
the  sulTerer  and  (Jod.     This  complete  desertion 
could  have  only  one  signiticance;  and  the  men 
who  believed  themselves  to  be  God's  favorites 
were  gloating  over  God's  conclusive  desertion 
and  rejection  of  the  one  who  had  claimed  him 
as  his  Father. — And  they  added,  according  to 
Matthew  and  Mark,  the  specific  demand.  Let 
Christ  the   King  of  Israel  descend   now 
from  the  cross,  that  we  may  see,  and  be- 
lieve, emphasizing  again  the  now,  as  if  this 
were  the  very  moment  when   he   might  win 
their  faith  by  such  a  display  of  power. — The 
demand   that  he  should   come   down   from 
the  cross  was  not  an  unreasonable  demand, 
from  his  enemies'  i)oint  of  view:  that  would 
be    giving    Israel    something    like   what  they 
wanteil  in  their  Messiah.     He  had  persisted  in 
giving  them  what  they  did  not  want ;  but  this, 
being  of  the  nature  of  a  convincing  sign,  would 
be  evidence  of  the  kind  that  they  delighted  in. 
To  refuse  it,  if  it  was  within  his  j>owcr,  would 
be  to  cast  discredit,  not  only  on  his  abilitj%  but  I 
on  his  wisdom — even  on  his  connnon  sense —  j 
and  on  all  his  claims  of  contiection  with  God.  | 
Hut  this  was  only  the  renewal  of  the  old  de-  j 
mand  for  signs,  of  which  a  godly  heart  could 
feel  no  need  in  his  presence  (Matt.  i2:.3s. 39;  M«rk  1 
8:11,12).     Nay,  it  was  a  renewal  of  the  tempta-  j 
tion  of  Satan  in  the  wilderness.     The  language,  j 
"if  thou  be  the  Son  of  God"  (m»ii.  27 :4o),  must  i 
have  instantly  recalknl  that  temptation  to  his  I 
mind  :  this  was  a  new  solicitation  to  prove  his 
Divine  Sonship  by  means  of  his  enemies'  choos-  | 
ing.     Moreover,  it  was  a  renewal  of  the  temp-  | 
tation  to  obtain  power  over  men  by  unspiritual  I 
means :   "  If  thou  therefore  wilt  worship  me,  1 


all  shall  be  thine."  We  must  not  think  that 
I  he  was  unconscious  of  the  solicitation  and  its 
j  meaning.  He  recognized,  we  may  be  sure,  the 
familiar  voice  of  the  temptation,  but  he  was 
"obedient,  unto  death." — Not  the  least  touch- 
ing and  impressive  part  of  our  Saviour's  endur- 
ance was  his  willing  submission  to  total  mis- 
understanding. The  ojjinions  concerning  him 
that  were  present  about  the  cross  were  abso- 
lutely false  and  amounted  to  complete  mis- 
representation. Little  did  any  beholder  know 
how  morally  impossible  it  was  for  him  to 
come  down  from  the  cross ;  and  the  whole  of 
that  moral  purpose  which  gave  significance  to 
this  transaction  was  unknown  or  misjudged  on 
every  side.  Yet  he  "  opened  not  his  mouth," 
either  to  remove  the  misapprehension  or  to 
plead  for  a  delay  of  judgment.  He  knew  him- 
self, his  purpose,  and  his  future  so  well  as  to 
be  content  to  wait  for  other  times  and  better 
understanding.— Luke  adds  that  the  soldiers 
took  part  in  the  derision — i.  e.  the  four  who 
had  crucified  him,  and  whose  office  it  was  to 
"  watch  "  him  till  death  should  relieve  them 
(Matt.  27:36;.  Thcsc  cauic  to  him,  "offering 
him,"  or  bringing  him,  vinegar,  perhaps 
tauntingly,  holding  it  out  to  him,  init  not  j)ut- 
ting  it  to  his  lips.  It  was  the  sour  wine  that 
the  soldiers  drank.  Their  words  rejieat  the 
Gentile  taunt,  as  in  the  second  derision,  "If 
thou  be  the  King  of  the  Jews,  save  thyself." 
The  chief  priests  said,  "the  Christ,  the  King 
of  Israel,"  but  these,  "the  King  of  the  .Tews." 
— And  they  that  were  crucified  with  him 
reviled  him.  So  Matthew  and  Mark,  who 
.say  nothing  of  the  great  exception  that  Luke 
commemorates.  There  is  no  difficulty  in  sup- 
posing that  the  two  began  their  reviling  to- 
gether, but  that  one  of  them  came  even  then 
to  a  better  mind  under  the  influence  of  the 
dying  Redeemer. — Throughout  this  la.st  mock- 
ing, as  in  the  others,  the  sufferer  maintained  his 
majestic  and  triumphant  silence — the  silence 
of  perfect  jiatience  an(i  self-command.  It  was 
broken  by  the  second  of  the  words  from  the 
cross,  the  sublime  won!  to  the  penitent  robber, 
"Verily  I  say  unto  thee,  To-<lay  shalt  thou  be 
with  me  in  paradise"  ( Luke 2:1 : 43).  What  other 
ever  broke  such  silence  with  such  speech? 
Here  was  the  Me.ssianic  consciousne.ss,  not 
only  unclouded,  but  making  the  k)fiiest  of  its- 


242 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XV. 


33  And"  when  the  sixth  hour  was  come,  there  was 
darkness  over  the  whole  land  until  the  ninth  hour. 

;-i4  And  at  the  ninth  hour  Jesus  cried  with  a  loud 
voice,  saying,  Eloi,*  Eloi,  lama  sabachthani?  which  is, 
being  interpreted,  My  tied,  my  Ciod,  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me'.'"^ 


33  And  when  the  sixth  hour  was  come,  there  was 
darkness  over  the  whole  'land  until  the  ninth  hour. 

34  And  at  the  ninth  hour  Jesus  cried  with  aloud  voice, 
Eloi,  Eloi,  lama  sabachthani?  which  is,  being  inter- 
preted, My  tjod,  my  God,  -why  hast  thou  forsaken 


a  Matt.  27  :45;  Luke  23  :  44....6  Ps.  22  :  1....C  Ps.  42  :  9  ;  71  :  11 :  Lam.  1  :  12.- 


-1  Or,  earth. . .  .2  Or,  why  didst  thou  forsake  i 


utterances:  no  other  word  of  the  Christ  sur- 
passes this  in  directness  and  boldness  of  self- 
assertion.  And  there  was  never  a  passing  doubt 
in  the  mind  of  Jesus  that  he  was  accepted  in 
the  sight  of  his  Father  and  about  to  enter  into 
his  Father's  glory  and  his  own.  In  truth,  he 
was  making  of  the  cross  itself  the  throne  and 
the  judgment-seat.  How  triumphant  a  re- 
sponse to  the  hatred  that  wished  to  degrade 
him  by  placing  him  between  two  robbers ! — 
Here,  also,  according  to  John,  we  are  to  place 
the  third  of  the  words  from  the  cross :  "  Woman, 
behold  thy  son  ;  behold  thy  mother,"  by  which 
he  completed  the  last  duty  that  sprang  from 
his  personal  human  relations,  giving  his  mother 
into  the  care  of  his  disciple.    Here  was 

"A  heart  at  leisure  from  itself 
To  soothe  and  sympathize."' 

33.  Of  the  darkness,  mentioned  by  all  the 
synoptists,  no  natural  explanation  is  to  be  given, 
except  that  Matthew  says  there  was  a  great 
earthquake;  and  such  disturbances  of  nature 
are  often  accompanied  by  an  unwonted  gloom. 
This,  however,  is  only  a  hint  provided  us,  not 
an  explanation.  The  evangelists  apparently 
intend  to  represent  it  as  a  supernatural  event, 
a  silent  expression  of  sympathy  from  inan- 
imate nature,  more  tender  than  man.  Here 
we  must  leave  it.  An  eclipse  of  the  sun  it  was 
not,  since  the  passover  fell  at  the  time  of  the 
full  moon,  and  such  eclipses  are  impossible 
when  the  moon  is  at  the  full.  It  is  best  re- 
garded simply  as  a  work  of  God,  a  miracle  of 
sympathy,  intended  to  symbolize  the  divine 
estimate  of  the  horribleness  of  this  deed  and  to 
shame  and  silence  the  wicked  license  of  men. — 
Of  the  extent  of  the  darkness  it  is  impossible 
to  speak,  for  the  plirase  over  the  whole  land 
is  too  indefinite  to  guide  us.  The  meaning  cer- 
tainly is  not  "  over  the  whole  earth,"  or  con- 
temporary liistory  would  show  some  confirm- 
atory evidence.  Whatever  ignorance  may  re- 
main upon  the  subject,  the  heart  feels  the  fitness 
of  sucli  a  sign  of  sympathy.  When  we  perceive 
the  significance  of  this  death — the  Just  for  the 
unjust ;  the  Good  Shepherd  giving  his  life  for 
the  sheep ;  the  cliastisement  of  our  peace  fall- 
ing upon  him  ;  the  Incarnate  God  dying  to  save 


the  race  that  he  had  made — we  are  ready  to  con- 
sent to  such  a  sign,  and  say, 

"  Well  might  the  sun  in  darkness  hide. 
And  shut  his  glories  in." 

According  to  all  the  three,  the  darkness  con- 
tinued from  the  sixth  hour  until  the  ninth 

hour — I.  e.  from  midday  till  about  three  o'clock. 
We  must  again  remember  the  difficulty  of  mak- 
ing exact  measurements  of  time,  and  must  not 
assume  tliat  these  are  meant  for  mathematical- 
ly correct  statements. — Of  what  was  said  and 
done  during  the  time  of  the  darkness  nothing 
is  told.  The  natural  impression  is  that  with 
the  darkness  there  fell  a  silence  upon  the  place. 
It  seems  quite  certain  that  during  these  hours 
Jesus  suffered  in  silence,  and  almost  equally 
certain  that  now  his  tormentors  were  still  and 
the  noise  of  the  crowd  was  hushed.  The  dark- 
ness served  as  a  mantle  for  the  sufferer,  to  cover 
him  from  the  scoffing  and  violence  of  his  en- 
emies. It  came,  we  may  almost  say,  as  a  re- 
sponse to  the  heartless  taunt,  "  He  trusted  in 
God  ;  let  him  deliver  him  now,  if  he  dcsireth 
him."  From  their  cruel  hands  and  tongues  at 
least,  he  did  deliver  him. 

34.  At  the  ninth  hour  the  darkness  ended, 
and  just  as  it  was  departing  it  seems  to  have 
been  that  Jesus  spoke  again.  More  than  once 
already  had  the  language  of  the  twenty-second 
psalm  been  brought  to  mind  by  the  events  of 
the  day — to  his  mind,  no  doubt,  as  well  as  to 
other  minds.  The  piercing  of  his  hands  and 
feet,  the  division  of  his  garments  among  the 
soldiers,  the  casting  of  lots  upon  his  coat,  and 
the  insulting  words  and  looks  about  him,  must 
have  reminded  him  of  it,  but  especially  the  quo- 
tation of  his  enemies  from  it,  the  making  of 
which  was  itself  a  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy 
of  the  psalm.  (Compare  the  language  of  Ps. 
22 :  7,  8.)  The  attitude  of  his  tormentors  around 
him  and  the  nature  of  his  own  misery  corre- 
sponded exactly  to  the  imagery  of  the  psalm, 
and  it  would  liave  been  strange  if  his  mind 
were  not  by  this  time  dwelling  tipon  that  fa- 
miliar language,  now  terribly  fulfilled. — His 
cry  was  a  literal  quotation  of  the  first  sentence 
of  that  psalm.  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast 
thou  forsaken  me  ?  Matthew  and  Mark  cite 
the  Hebrew  words,  or  rather  the  Aramaic.  Mark 


Ch.  XV.] 


MARK. 


243 


gives  Eloi  instead  of  "  Eli,"  Eloi  being  the  Syr- 
iac  f(jrin.     Mark  is  accustomed  to  give  the  very 
words,  but  in  this  case  it  would  seem,  from  the 
play  upon  the  word  mentioned  in  the  next  verse, 
that  >hitthew's  form  nmst  have  been  tlie  correct 
one.    Luke  and  John  omit  this  utterance,  Jolin, 
periiaps,  because  he  was  no  longer  jiresent,  hav- 
ing taken  the  mother  of  Jesus  away  from  the  sci^ne 
of  agony  (Johu  19:27).     While  Matthew  and  Mark 
preserve  it,  it  is  singular  that  this  is  the  (july  one 
of  the  words  from  the  cross  that  tliey  do  record. 
The  cry  itself  reveals  unfathomable  depths. 
A  full  explanation  of  it  is  impossible  to  man, 
and  must  remain  so ;  for  the  humanity  of  Christ 
himself  is  the  only  humanity  that  can  ever  be 
ade(iuate  to  the  mystery  of  divine  suffering. 
This  cry  seems  to  rei)resent  the  Saviour's  spirit- 
ual agony  at  its  very  deepest,  and  as  we  study  it 
its  meaning  and  its  mystery  grow  deeper  bef(jre 
our  eyes.    Some  things  about  it,  however,  are 
certain.     It  wixs  not  extorted  from  our  Saviour 
by  an  actual  desertion  on  the  i)art  of  liis  Father, 
a  changing  of  his  Father's  feeling  toward  him 
from  love  and  approval  to  wrath.     Note  tlie 
meaning  of  the  following  passages :   "  I  came 
down  from  lieaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will, 
but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me"  (John 6: 38); 
"  He  that  sent  me  is  with  me ;  the  Father  hath 
not  left  me  alone ;  for  I  do  always  those  things  : 
that  i)lease  him"  (joiin8:29);  "Therefore  doth 
my  Father  love  me,  because  I  lay  down  my  j 
life,  that  I  might  take  it  again  "  (John  lo  -.  n).  This 
was  the  moment  of  that  laying  down  of  his  life  : 
which  his  Father  had  appointed  to  him,  and  for 
which  his  Father  loved  him.     It  is  morally  im-  I 
possible  that  at  the  supreme  moment  of  his  ])cv- 
fect  ol)edience  God  turned  away  from  him  in 
wrath.     Any  wrath  that  could  have  been  di- 
rected against  him  at  that  moment,  or  intleed 
at  any  other,  could  have  been  only  a  seeming 
wrath  :  God  really  approved  of  him.     But  the 
luitrue  appearance  of  anger  is  impassible  to 
tiod,  and  so  is  real  anger  against  a  righteous 
being.     We  cannot  say  that  God  sui>po.sed  him  [ 
to  be  guilty  and  was  therefore  angry  at  him, 
this  temporary  anger  being  a  part  of  the  plan, 
(ioil  never  supposes  anything  that  is  not  true, 
and  never  feels  anger  at  any  one  who  does  not 
de.serve  it.      To  supj)ose  that  such  temjjorary 
anger  against  Jesus  in  the  moment  of  his  per- 
fect obedience  was  jilanned  is  "to  introduce  tlie 
profoundest  unreality  into  the  relations  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son  "  (A.  M.  Fairbairn's  Stiirlirn 
in  the  Life  of  Christ,  p.  32.5)  and  into  the  whole 
method  of  divine  grace  in  saving  sinners.     No 
true  heart  can  plan  to  be  angry  at  a  given  time 
at  a  being  who  is  only  supposed  to  be  deserving  | 


of  anger;  least  of  all  can  God.  Nor  do  the 
Scriptures  assert  that  God  was  angry  at  Jesus 
then.  His  wrath  is  assumed  by  many  as  the 
exj)lanation  of  this  cry  of  sorrow,  but  the  be- 
lief in  it  rests  wholly  upon  inference. 

What,  then,  is  the  explanation  of  the  cry? 
We  must  seek  it  in  such  facts  as  the  following. 
(1)  There  was  then  in  his  soul  a  sutfering  on 
account  of  sin  scjrer  than  any  that  ever  was  or 
can  be  endured  by  any  other  of  woman  born. 
No  penal  suti'ering  can  approach  it  in  intensity. 
The  sinfulness  of  the  human  race  had  brought 
him  to  the  cross.     Not  merely  the  malice  of  in- 
dividuals, but  the  entire  sum  of  liuman  sinful- 
ness, had  had  to  do  with  bringing  him  thither. 
He  was  sutfering  in  order  that  he  might  remove 
the  sinfulness  of  men  ;  and,  with  the  sensitive- 
ness of  perfect  righteousness  and  of  immeasur- 
I  able  pity,  he  felt  the  horribleness  and  curse  of 
sin.     But  sin  was  now  expressing  itself  against 
him  in  the  form  of  extremest  outrage  against 
righteousness  and  love.     It  was  a  dreadful  real- 
ity, forcing  home  its  utmost  malignity  upon  the 
manifested  God.     In  penal  sutlering  sin  bears 
its  fruit  in  souls  that  are  morally  corrupted 
and  weakened ;    but  here  sin  was  forcing  its 
evil  on  One  who  was  the  Incarnate  Holiness 
and  Love.    The  sutt'ering  that  it  caused  him 
was  not,  strictly,  penal  suffering;    but  in  his 
perfect  righteousness,  his  intense  sympathy  of 
love  toward  man,  and  his  sensibilitj'  to  good 
and  evil,  never  dulled  by  sin,  there  lay  the  se- 
cret of  a  suffering  sharper  than  penal  suffering 
can  ever  be.     The  driving  of  the  nails  through 
his  flesh  was  but  the  outward  symbol  of  what 
sin  was  doing  to   his  soul.     It  surely  was  of 
God's  will  that  he  was  suffering  thus,  and  thus 
alone.      This  was  a   part  of  that  which   "  it 
pleased  the  Lord"  (isr.ssmo)  to  lay  ujion  him— 
a  part  of  "  the  cup  which  liis  P'ather  had  given 
him  "  (John  18 ;  II).     A  suffering  that  reached  less 
far  than  this  would  not  have  siifticcd  to  "  make 
the  Cai)tain  of  our  salvation  perfect  "  f Heb.  2 :  10) 
or  to  comi)lete  his  perfect  offering  of  himself 
(Heb.9: 14).     (2)  If  wc  look  at  the  solitariness  of 
this  suffering,  and  ask  how  it  was  possible  for 
Christ  thus  to  feel  him.self  forsaken  as  the  Psalm- 
ist did,  the  general  answer  is  that  in  this  final 
agony  our  Saviour's   sense  of  his  unity  with 
God  was  overjiowered  by  his  sense  of  his  unity 
with  sinful  men.     These  two  unities  were  the 
God  ward  and  man  ward  aspects  of  his  essential 
being.      His   unity  witli   God  was  due  to   liis 
place  in  the  Godliead  as  tlie  Word  which  in  the 
beginning  was  with   God   and  was  God;    liis 
unity  with  men  was  due  to  the  fact  that  in  him 
the  Word  had  become  flesh — i.  e.,  had  entered 


244 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XV. 


into  human  life  and  limitations,  so  that  he  who 
was  the  Word  was  also  truly  and  equally  a 
human  being.  Sucli  unity  with  men  was  pos- 
sible because  man  was  made  in  the  image  of 

God    (Gen.  1  :  27;  James  3:  9).        The    Word    WaS    the 

image  of  God  (Heb.  i  :3;  coi.  i :  is),  and  therefore 
the  archetype  of  man ;  hence  the  Word,  when 
incarnate,  was  truly  the  brotlier  of  man 
(Matt  25 :  40;  johu  20 :  17),  while  yet  he  did  not  cease 
to  be  tlie  Son  of  God  (Matt,  ii :  27 :  John  10 :  30).  His 
unity  with  God  and  his  unity  with  men  were 
equal,  and  the  very  nature  of  his  being  consti- 
tuted him  the  Mediator,  uniting  God  and  men, 
able  to  feel  with  both  and  act  for  both. 
Through  his  life  these  two  unities  seem  to  have 
remained,  if  one  may  so  speak,  in  equipoise. 
But  in  this  final  agony  his  unity  with  God  and 
his  unity  with  men  conspired  so  to  roll  upon 
his  consciousness  the  whole  burden  of  human 
sin  as  that  the  sense  of  the  divine  unity  could 
scarce  remain  for  liis  comfort,  (a)  His  unity 
with  men.  They  were  killing  him  because  he 
was  good.  Sin  was  doing  its  worst,  breaking 
forth  as  uncontrollable  rage  against  holiness 
and  love.  It  was  godlessness,  malignity,  dei- 
cide — the  scornful,  wrathful  rejection  of  the 
character,  kingdom,  and  work  of  God.  The 
entire  sum  of  human  sinfulness  had  had  to  do 
with  bringing  him  to  the  cross,  and  the  vastness 
and  guilt  of  that  sinfulness  were  fearfully  pres- 
ent to  him.  Yet  it  was  not  sin  that  was  foreign 
to  him,  in  which  he  felt  no  personal  concern. 
He  had  cast  in  his  lot  with  men  in  a  unity 
so  true  and  vital  that  by  virtue  of  it  he 
''bore  our    griefs,   and  carried    our  sorrows" 

(Isa.53:4;  Matt.  8:17),  and  "  borC  OUr  sinS  "  (1  Pet.  2:  24). 

This  unity  with  men,  though  undefinable  in 
human  terms,  was  terribly  and  gloriously  real. 
It  finds  partial  analogies  in  the  closest  human 
relations,  especially  in  that  of  parent  and  child. 
Not  mere  sympathy,  but  unity  of  life,  brought 
the  whole  burden  of  the  world's  sin  upon  his 
consciousness.  What  was  ours  was  his  that 
what  was  his  might  be  ours.  (6)  His  unity 
with  God.  At  the  same  time,  he  was  the  image 
of  the  Godhead,  in  whom  all  the  moral  affec- 
tions and  judgments  of  God  were  most  truly 
present.  Hence  he  was  perfectly  one  with  God 
in  his  estimate  of  the  sin  that  he  was  bearing. 
He  shared  to  the  full  in  God's  just  and  neces- 
sary wrath  against  it.  His  whole  being  abhorred 
and  condemned  it,  even  while  his  unity  with 
men  had  so  terribly  involved  him  in  it.  His 
filial  relation,  too,  gave  him  a  peculiar  liorror 
at  the  sin  of  man  in  violating  a  filial  relation 
intended  by  the  Creator  to  be  perfected  in  a  son- 
ship  so  like  his  own.    His  perfect  filial  holiness 


was  absolutely  condemning,  in  unity  with  his 
F'ather,  the  sin  with  which,  in  unity  with  his 
brethren,  his  soul  was  weighed  down.  Tlius 
his  unity  with  God  brought  him  no  relief,  but 
only  intensified  his  woe  and  lieli)ed  to  take 
away  the  sense  of  its  own  preciousness,  Tlie 
sense  of  his  unity  with  men  overj>owered  the 
sense  of  his  unity  with  God  and  brouglit  the 
whole  burden  of  the  world's  sin  ujton  his  con- 
sciousness, leaving  him  with  no  consciousness 
of  the  helpful  presence  of  his  Father.  (3)  This 
may  be  plainer  if  we  remember  tliat  he  Avas 
living,  doing,  and  suffering  within  tlie  limits  of 
humanity.  He  was  "  in  all  things  made  like 
unto  his  brethren"  (Heb. 2:17),  and  no  divine 
power  of  liis  was  ever  called  in  to  make  his 
burden  lighter.  As  the  truth  that  he  taught 
had  to  be  apprehended  by  his  human  powers 
before  he  as  Mediator  was  ready  to  declare  it 
(see  Dr.  Hovey's  God  tvith  Us,  p.  75),  so  all  the 
holiness,  love,  labor,  humiliation,  and  agony 
that  his  mission  involved  had  to  be  accepted 
and  aj)propriated  by  human  jiowers  and  sin- 
lessly  wrought  out  within  the  limits  of  human- 
ity. The  more  naturally,  therefore,  miglit  the 
sense  of  his  unity  with  sinful  men  sweep  away 
the  sense  of  his  unity  with  God  in  this  dreadful 
time  and  leave  him  to  feel  himself  alone  in  his 
agony.  Thus  our  Saviour  appears  in  real  com- 
munity of  experience  with  tlie  devoutest  of 
his  brethren,  though  suffering  immeasurably 
beyond  them.  His  suffering,  mysterious  though 
it  was,  was  not  endured  in  an  essentially  differ- 
ent world  from  ours.  The  cry  that  he  borrowed 
from  the  Psalmist  he  used  in  essentially  the 
same  sense  as  the  Psalmist,  to  whom  it  meant, 
"  Why  hast  thou  allowed  me  to  suffer  without 
the  sense  of  thy  helpful  presence?"  See  also 
the  experience  of  Job  (is :  6-9 ;  23 : 3-9)  and  of  Jere- 
miah (20 : 7-9, 14-18),  and  compare  what  Paul  says 
of  "the  fellowship  of  his  sufferings"  and  con- 
formity to  his  death.  He  stands  as  our  great 
Example  in  his  filial  faithfulness  in  the  dark- 
ness. Even  tliis  loneliness  did  not  shake  his 
confidence  in  his  Father  or  weaken  the  claim 
of  his  heart  upon  him :  still  did  lie  call  him  "  my 
God,  my  God."  Like  the  Psalmist,  too,  and  Job 
and  Jeremiah,  he  found  the  j)criod  of  darkness 
short,  tlie  light  of  God  quickly  returning  to  the 
soul  that  in  the  darkness  had  been  true. 

The  significance  of  the  cross  in  connection 
witli  redemption  lias  not  been  too  much  dwelt 
upon,  but  the  significance  of  the  cross  by  way 
of  example  has  been  too  much  overlooked. 
See  1  Peter  2  :  21-24  for  the  example  of  Clirist 
in  death  as  well  as  in  the  suffering  that  pre- 
ceded.   See  also  Phil.  2  :  5-8. 


Ch.  XV.] 


MARK. 


245 


35  And  some   of  them  that  stood    by,  when  they  i  35  me?    And  some  of  them  that  stood  by,  when  they 


heard  //,  said,  Behold  he  calleth  ICIias. 

36  And  one  ran  and  filled  a  sponge  full  of  vinegar, 
and  put  ii  on  a  reed,  and  gave"  him  to  drink,  saying. 
Let  alone;  let  us  see  whether  Elias  will  come  to  take 
him  down. 

.(7  And'  Jesus  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  and  gave  up 
the  ghost. 


36  heard  it,  said,  Heboid,  he  calleth  Klijah.  And  one 
ran,  and  filling  a  sponge  full  of  vinegar,  put  it  on  a 
reed,  and  gave  him  to  drink,  saying,  Let  be;  let  us 

37  see  whether  Elijah  Cometh  to  take  him  down.  And 
Jesus  uttered  a  loud  voice,  and  gave  up  the  ghost. 


aPa.  69:21....t  Matt.  27  :  60;  Luke  23  :  46. 


35,  36.  To  the  soldiers  the  quoted  words 
would  be  unnieanin<i:,  but  to  the  chief  priests 
and  to  others  trained  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
they  were  plain.  No  Sanhedrist  failed  to  recog- 
nize tlie  piussage.  But  some  pretended  not  to  , 
recognize  it,  and  to  tliink  that  the  Eli  was 
meant  for  Elias.  The  popular  expectation  of 
Elijah  in  connection  with  the  Messiah  made 
this  another  insulting  thrust  at  Jesus  as  claiming 
the  Mcssiahship  :  "  The  Clirist  is  calling  upon 
his  predicted  fellow-messenger!"  So  the  scoff- 
ing voices  had  been  stilled,  but  not  silenced,  by 
the  darkness,  and  broke  out  afresh  when  it  was 
removed. — Here,  just  as  tlic  scoffing  was  re- 
newed, we  nuist  place  that  which  John  gives  as 
the  lifth  word  from  the  cross,  "  I  tlnrst,"  uttered, 
as  John  asserts,  in  perfect  self-possession,  from 
the  consciousness  that  this  was  a  part  of  his 
l>redicted  course. — It  was  in  response  to  this 
utterance — not  a  cry,  but  made  in  tones  of  gen- 
uine i)hysical  exhaustion  —  that  tlie  vinegar 
was  offered  to  him.  Tlie  offering  of  it  was  an 
act  of  kindness  by  one  unknown,  probably  one 
of  tlie  soldiers.  It  was  no  drugged  wine,  but 
the  common  sour  wine  that  tiie  soldiers  drank. 
The  coincidence  with  I's.  G!)  :  21  is  merely  ex- 
ternal.— On  a  reed.  John,  "upon  hyssop" — 
i.  e.  the  sponge  was  held  out  upon  a  stalk  of 
hyssop,  the  mouth  of  Jesus  being  probably  just 
too  higii  to  be  reached  by  the  hand. — Gave  him 
to  drink.  And  he  did  not  refuse.  (Compare 
John,  "when  he  had  received  the  vinegar.") 
— Matthew  and  Mark  differ  as  to  the  source  of 
the  remark.  Let  alone  ;  let  us  see  whether 
Elias  will  come  to  take  him  down,  Mark 
attrilmting  it  to  the  man  himself,  and  Matthew 
to  the  bystanders  who  had  already  spoken  of 
Elijah.  No  doul)t  the  remonstrance  arose,  as 
Matthew  says,  from  the  bystanders.  If  the  two 
accounts  are  to  be  harmonized,  it  is  quite  pos- 
sible to  suppose  that  the  thonglitle.ss  soldier  fell 
in  with  the  taunt  of  the  heartless  spectators 
even  while  lie  did  a  deed  of  mercy. — In  Mat- 
thew tiie  query  is  whether  Elijah  will  come  and 
save  him  ;  in  Mark,  whether  Elijah  will  come 
to  take  him  down.  It  is  pkiin,  they  think, 
that  he  cannot  come  down  from  tlie  cross  him- 
self, l)ut  perhaps  when  he  is  lielple.^ss  he  can 
have  Elijah's  help ;  and  so  they  wish  the  sol- 


dier to  let  him  alone  and  put  his  supposed  ex- 
pectations to  the  test. 

37.  In  Matthew  and  Mark  only  the  utterance 
of  a  loud  voice  is  mentioned ;  in  Luke  and  John 
the  sixth  and  seventh  of  the  seven  words  from 
the  cro«s  are  introduced.  It  is  impossible  to  de- 
termine, except  from  internal  probability,  which 
of  these  was  the  last  utterance,  thoiigli  it  should 
be  added  that  Luke's  language,  "and  having 
said  this,  he  exjjired,"  is  a  little  more  definite 
than  that  of  John.  Probably  the  saying  re- 
corded by  John,  "  It  is  finisiied,"  was  first  ut- 
tered. It  is  retrospective  and  triumi)hant ;  it  is 
the  final  echo  of  the  word  that  he  spoke  by  an- 
ticipation on  the  previous  evening :  "  I  have  fin- 
ished the  work  wiiich  thou  gavcst  me  to  do." 
The  word  recorded  by  Luke  was  probably  the 
last,  the  very  dying  word :  "  Fatlier,  into  thy 
hands  I  commend  my  spirit."  This  again  is  a 
quotation  from  the  Psalms  (Ps.  31  :  5,  cited  al- 
m(«t  exactly  from  the  Septuagint,  with  the  addi- 
tion of  "  Father").  As  an  utterance  now,  it  is 
prospective  and  trustful ;  it  is  the  "  Keturn  unto 
thy  rest,  0  my  soul ;"  it  is  tlic  expression  of  perfect 
faith  at  the  moment  of  death.  Remember  that 
this,  though  it  was  more,  was  a  genuine  human 
death.  As  such  it  is  the  great  exanii)le  and 
comfort  of  the  dying,  and  these  final  words  of 
faith  are  an  inestimable  treasure.  In  the  first 
recorded  Ciiristian  death  the  spirit  of  this  prayer 
reappears,  but  the  petition  is  addressed  to  Christ 
himself:  "Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit"  (acu 
7 :  59).— We  would  naturally  think  of  this  as  a 
quiet  brcatliing  of  faith;  but  it  was  uttered 
with  a  loud  voice.  After  the  agony  and  the 
cry  of  loneliness,  it  was  fitting  that  all  should 
know  that  he  was  dying  in  the  peace  of  God. — 
And  gave  up  the  ghost.  Exepnciufin,  used  by 
Mark  and  Luke,  is  the  exact  etjuivalent  of  "he 
exjiired" — i.e.,  simply,  "he  died."  It  is  ex- 
tremely unfortunate  that  the  i)lira.se  in  the 
received  version  should  be  retained  in  the  Re- 
vision. The  only  otlier  word  of  description  is 
that  of  John,  "  lie  bowed  his  head." 

Jesus  died  voluntarily.  (See  John  10:18: 
"No  one  taketh  it" — ('.  c.  my  life — "from  me, 
but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself")  In  a  real  sense, 
his  death  wius  his  own  act.  This  is  not  to  be 
taken,  however,  as  meaning  that  on  tlie  cross 


246                                                    MARK.                                          [Ch.  XV. 

38  And  the  vail  of  the  temple  was  rent  in  twain, 
from  the  top  to  the  bottom. 

38  And  the  veil  of  the  'temple  was  rent  in  twain  from 

1  Or,  sanctuary 

he  put  an  end  to  his  Hfe  by  an  act  of  his  will, 
or,  in  plain  language,  cominitted  suicide.  His 
death  had  its  adequate  physical  causes,  like  any 
other  death.  He  did  not  hasten  it  by  miracle, 
and  he  could  not  have  escaped  or  delayed  it 
without  miracle.  He  suffered  unto  death.  But 
the  shortness  of  the  time  that  he  spent  on  the 
cross  proves  (see  note  on  verse  44)  that  he  did 
not  die  the  ordinary  death  of  the  crucified.  The 
physical  torture,  severe  as  it  was,  was  not  the 
sole  cause  of  his  death.  He  died  of  his  agony, 
the  inward  woe  and  struggle  of  his  soul — that 
is  to  say,  he  died  directly  in  consequence  of  his 
agony  respecting  sin.  The  suffering  was  ac- 
cepted in  perfect  submission  to  the  divine  will, 
and  was  perfectly  endured ;  but  it  was  such  as 
humanity  could  not  endure  without  being  rent 
asunder,  spirit  from  body.  He  undertook  to 
endure  it,  and  did  endure,  until  it  killed  him. 
He  "became  obedient,  unto  death." — As  to  the 
physical  cavise  of  his  deatli,  they  are  not  to  be 
envied  who  have  fixed  their  eyes  so  closely 
upon  it  as  to  be  able  to  write  whole  books  on 
the  subject;  but  there  appears  to  be  much  in 
favor  of  the  theory  that  he  died  directly  from 
rupture  of  the  vessels  of  the  heart — a  mode  of 
death  that  is  known  in  rare  cases  to  result  from 
extreme  mental  anguish.  There  is  nothing 
gained,  however,  by  saying  to  ourselves  that 
"  he  died  literally  of  a  broken  heart."  That  is 
a  mere  play  upon  words  that  means  nothing 
and  calls  our  attention  away  from  the  main 
point.  That  is  the  tendency,  indeed,  of  the 
whole  discussion  of  the  physical  cause  of  our 
Saviour's  death.  The  spiritual  cause  of  his 
death  is  better  worth  our  days  and  years  of 
(Study.  He  died  on  account  of  our  sins,  that 
he  might  be  able  to  deliver  us  from  them.  His 
death  is  the  culmination  of  the  action  of  his 
incarnate  life.  It  was  all  intended  to  reveal 
God  perfectly,  to  condemn  sin  in  the  sight  of 
the  human  heart  and  conscience,  to  provide 
efficient  means  of  bringing  sinners  back  to  God, 
and  thus  to  do  that  which  was  necessary  to  the 
nature  of  God  before  he  could  freely  send  forth 
his  saving  influence  upon  tlie  world. 

38.  The  object-lesson  that  corresponds,  in  the 
synoptists,  to  the  sjioken  word  in  John,  "It  is 
finished."  The  vail  of  the  temple  was  the 
heavy  embroidered  curtain  tliat  hung  between 
the  Holy  Place  and  the  Holiest  of  All.  "  The 
vail  of  tlie  sanctuary  "  would  be  a  more  ad- 
equate and  significant  translation,  for  it  was  the 


vail  that  concealed  the  inner  sanctuarj'  of  the 
temple,  even  from  the  priests  (ex.  26:31-33).  The 
rending  of  that  vail  in  connection  with  the 
death  of  Jestis  (Luke  places  it  just  before  the 
death ;  Matthew  and  Mark,  apparently  at  the  very 
moment)  could  be  nothing  but  a  miraculous 
event ;  certainly  it  was  not  a  result  of  the  earth- 
quake. The  priests  alone  would  see  it,  but  such 
an  event  could  not  be  effectually  concealed, 
anxious  as  they  might  be  to  conceal  it.  It 
would  find  its  way  out  among  the  rumors  of 
the  time,  and  the  story  would  not  have  taken 
its  place  in  the  records  of  Christian itj^  if  it  had 
not  been  confirmed  by  the  priests  who  became 
obedient  unto  the  faith  (Acts  6: 7).  The  event 
was  a  sign  from  God.  The  significance  of  the 
"first,"  or  outer,  "tabernacle"  is  set  forth  in 
Heb.  9  :  1-10.  While  it  was  standing,  with  the 
vail  between  it  and  the  Holiest,  "the  way  into 
the  Holiest  was  not  made  manifest;"  the  sym- 
bolic dwelling-place  of  God  was  still  shut  away 
from  men,  and  the  only  approach  was  symbol- 
ized by  priestly  and  sacrificial  services.  The 
rending  of  the  vail  announced  the  end  of  the 
old  sacrificial  religion,  told  the  priests  that  their 
work  was  done,  and  declared  that  the  way  to 
God  was  henceforth  freely  open  to  men.  Je- 
sus, passing  "  through  the  vail,  that  is  to  say,  his 
flesh"  (Heb.  10: 20),  whicli  alone  had  intervened 
between  him  and  the  glory  of  his  Father,  had 
now  entered  as  the  true  High  Priest  into  the  true 
Holy  Place,  and  he  had  gone  as  the  forerunner 
of  all  his  people,  leaving  no  vail  behind  him, 
no  barrier,  real  or  symbolic,  in  the  way  of  man 
to  God.  The  temple  was  henceforth  no  true 
sanctuary,  and  the  rending  of  its  vail  proclaimed 
that  the  space  within  it  was  now  common 
ground.  (It  is  well  to  study  here  the  entire 
passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  from  4  : 
14  to  10  :  25.) — Yet  observe  even  in  this  miracle 
the  rational  and  suggestive  method  of  God  with 
men.  He  did  not  destroy  the  temple,  though 
its  legitimate  work  was  done.  How  easy  it 
would  have  been  to  let  the  earthquake  sliatter 
the  outer  sanctuary  just  when  tlie  vail  was  rent 
that  concealed  the  inner!  And  how  ready  men 
would  have  been  to  call  it  an  appropriate  inter- 
position !  He  did  not  destroy  the  temple,  but  he 
did  give  to  the  nation  that  held  it  sacred,  and 
especially  to  the  priests  who  held  it  most  sa- 
cred, a  most  significant  and  impressive  liint,  a 
help  to  tliotight  and  to  conviction,  a  means  of 
learning  for  themselves  that  the  way  to  God 


Ch.  XV.] 


MARK. 


247 


39  %  And  when  the  centurion,  which  stood  over 
ag.iinst  liini,  saw  that  he  so  cried  out,  and  gave  up  the 
ghost,  lie  said,  Truly  this  man  was  the  Son  of  <iod. 

40  There  were  also  women  lookiiiK  on  alar"  off; 
anionjT  whom  was  Mary  Magdalene,  and  Mary  the 
motlier  of  .lames  the  less  and  of  Joses,  and  Salome; 

41  (Who  also,  when  he  was  in  Galilee,  followed  him, 
and  ministered*  unto  him;)  and  many  other  women 
which  came  up  with  him  uuto  Jerusalem. 


39  the  top  to  the  bottom.  And  when  the  centurion, 
who  .stood  by  over  against  him,  saw  that  he  'so 
gave  up  the  ghost,  he  said.  Truly  this  man  was  "the 

40  Son  of  Ijod.  And  there  were  also  women  beholding 
from  afar:  among  wlioni  «v/;r  both  Mary  Magdalene, 
and   Mary  the   mother  of  .lames   the  'less  and  of 

41  .loses,  and  Salome;  who,  when  he  was  in  Clalilee, 
followed  him,  and  ministered  unto  him;  and  many 
other  women  that  came  up  with  him  unto  Jerusalem. 


a  Vs.  38  :  11 6  Luke  8  :  Z.  3.- 


-1  Many  ancient  i 


uthorities  read  ao  cried  out,  and  gave  up  the  gho»t '2  Or,  a  eon  of  God. 

little. 


was  open.  He  spoke  to  tliem  in  symbol  that 
tlicy  nii^ht  think  and  understand,  appealing, 
as  he  always  does,  to  tiie  rational  power  in  man. 
— Xo  one  of  the  evanjielists  offers  any  explana- 
tion of  tlii.s  symbol,  whence  some  have  inferred 
that  they  did  not  understand  it.  Better  infer 
tliat  tliey  supposed  every  one  would  understand 
it;  althougli  this  is  not  to  deny  tliat  even  to 
them  it  might  seem  still  more  profoundly  sig- 
niticant  after  tlie  overtlirow  of  Jerusalem. 

Here  Matthew  speaks  of  the  earthquake,  the 
rending  of  the  rocks,  and  the  opening  of  the 
graves,  and  adds  the  une."ici)lained  record  of  the 
conting  forth  of  saints  from  their  graves  after 
the  resurrection  of  .Jesus. 

39.  The  centurion.     Hero  is  one  of  Mark's 
Latinisiiis,  for  he  borrows  the  Latin  word  ce»-  I 
tiirid  {krnturion),  while  Matthew  and  Luke  use 
the  customary  Greek  word.     He  was  the  officer 
in   charge  of  the  crucifixion,  who  had  stood  \ 
over  against  him,  where  he  could  see  every-  I 
tiling,  as  bis  duty  was. — The  best  text  omits  that 
he  so  cried  out,  and  reads,  "  when  tiie  cen-  j 
turion  .  .  .  saw  that  he  tiius  exjiired" — i.  e. 
with  sucli  more  tlian  liuman  dignity,  and  with 
such  amazing  signs  in  nature  about  liim.     Mat- 
thew, "seeing  the  earth(juake,  and  the  things 
tliat  were  done;"  Luke,  simply,  "seeing  that 
wliich    was  done."     Matthew  joins   witli    the 
centurion  the  others  who  were  watciiing  Jesus  I 
with  him — t.  e.  the  soldiers.     Luke,  in  tlie  fol-  j 
lowing  verse,  tells  of  the  profound  impression  ' 
that  was  made  on  tlie  spectators  generally  by 
the  awful  scene. — Truly  this  man  Avas  the  j 
Son  of  (Jod.    Luke,  "  Really  rigliteous  was  this  i 
man  ;"  Matthew  like  Mark,  with  tlic  omission  | 
of  "  man."     The  revisers  rightly  give  "  a  son  of  j 
God  "  as  an  alternative  translation.     The  cen-  ' 
turion  ])robably  spoke  in  Latin,  where  there  is 
no  definite  article;  the /T/Zf/.s- A'/ (Son  of  God)  I 
tliat  he  uttered  would  bear  either  meaning.     It  j 
is  impos.sible  to  tell  e.xactly  what  his  thought 
was — whether  he  meant  "  the  Son  "  or  "  a  son," 
"God"  or  "  a  god."     Possibly,  Luke,  aware  of 
tliis  ambiguity  in  the  language  of  the  heathen 
Roman,  but  knowing  tliat  he  meant  it  as  a  gen- 
uiii?  tribute  of  reverence,  may  iiave  intention-  i 


ally  given  the  moral  significance  of  the  remark 
instead  of  its  precise  form.  Tlie  centurion  had 
been  hearing  the  title  Son  of  God  applieil  in 
scoffing  to  the  sufferer,  and,  tliough  ignorant, 
yet  with  a  truer  heart  than  that  of  the  Jews,  he 
assented  to  it  as  a  title  that  was  well  deserved. 
Yet  with  him  it  could  scarcely  mean  much 
more  than  "  this  man  was  righteous." — It  has 
been  observed  that  all  the  centurions  in  the 
New  Testament  appear  at  good  advantage,  can- 
dor and  kindness  having  been  manifested  in 
some  form  by  them  all. 

40,  41.  All  the  synoptists  mention  tliis 
group  of  women,  Luke  without  enumeration 
of  their  names.  Luke  has  a  similar  group  (or, 
more  strictly,  the  saiaie)  at  chap.  8  :  2,  3,  with 
some  names  enumerated.  Here  three  are  men- 
tioned as  belonging  to  the  company  that  fol- 
lowed hi»n,  when  he  was  in  Galilee,  and 
ministered  unto  him  (Luke  8  :  .3,  "  minister- 
ed to  him  of  their  substance  "),  ami  many  oth- 
er women  are  mentioned  (by  Mark  alone)  as 
having  come  up  with  him  unto  Jerusalem. 
— They  stood  afar  off  (so  all  the  synoptists), 
looking  on,  and  with  them  (Luke)  were  "all 
his  acquaintance" — i.  e.  the  group  contained 
generally  those  of  his  friends  who  were  present 
in  Jerusalem.  Of  course  the  mention  of  this 
group,  iicing  introduced  after  the  record  of  his 
death,  relates  to  no  single  moment,  and  does 
not  imply  that  the  same  ]icrsons  were  togetlier 
during  the  whole  time  of  the  crucifixion.  John 
has  already  sjioken  of  all  wliose  names  are  given 
here  as  staiiiling  earlier  "  beside  the  cross."  It 
is  a  touching  fact  that  the  mother  of  Jesus 
appears  only  there,  beside  the  cross,  and  not 
among  those  who  stood  afar  off. — .>Iary  .Mag- 
dalene. Now  earliest  mentioned,  except  in 
Luke  8  :  2.  Her  connection  with  her  Lord  be- 
gan, as  that  passage  leads  us  to  believe,  with 
his  act  in  casting  out  of  her  "seven  demons" — 
t.  e.  in  relieving  her  of  some  specially  severe  form 
of  demoniacal  possession  ;  for  there  is  no  good 
rea-son  to  spiritualize  the  liealing,  as  James 
Freeman  Clarke  has  done  (  The  Ijeijetvl  of  Thom- 
as Didi/rnm)  into  the  deliverance  from  false- 
hood, murder,  pride,  luxury,  selfishness,  unbe- 


248 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XV. 


42  IF  And  now  when  the  even  was  come,  because  it 
was  the  Preparation,  that  is,  the  day  before  the  sab- 
bath, 

4S  Joseph  of  Arimathsea,  an  honorable  counsellor, 
which  also  waited"  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  came,  and 
went  in  boldly  unto  I'ilate,  and  craved  the  body  of  Jesus. 


42  And  when  even  was  now  come,  because  it  was  the 

43  Preparation,  that  is,  the  day  before  the  sabbath,  there 
came  Joseph  of  Arimathsea,  a  councillor  of  honor- 
able estate,  who  also  himself  was  looking  for  the 
kingdom  of  God ;  and  he  boldly  went  in  unto  Pilate, 


a  Luke  2  :  '25 ;  Tit.  2  :  13. 


lief,  and  despair.  There  is  no  evidence  for 
identifying  lier  with  any  other  Mary  of  the 
Gospels  or  to  cast  doubt  on  the  purity  of  her 
life.  Tlie  most  probable  derivation  of  her  name 
is  from  "  Magdala,"  or  "  Migdol,"  "  the  watch- 
tower,"  a  town  on  the  shore  of  Lake  Gennes- 
aret.  After  tlie  healing  she  became  one  of  the 
"  ministering  women ;"  but  her  recorded  con- 
nection with  her  Lord  has  to  do  mainly  with 
the  scenes  of  his  death  and  resurrection. — 
Mary  the  mother  of  James  the  less,  or 
the  little.  Probably  a  descriptive  name,  given 
because  he,  like  Zacchseus,  was  small  of  stature. 
— And  of  Joses.  (See  note  on  Mark  3  :  18.) 
There  are  unanswered  questions  about  this 
family  group,  but  it  seems  most  probable  that 
the  James  and  Joses  here  mentioned  are  not  to 
be  identified  with  those  who  appear  among  the 
"  brethren  of  tlie  Lord  "  at  Mark  6  :  3. — Salome 
is  to  be  identified  with  "  the  mother  of  Zeb- 
edee's  children  "  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Mat- 
thew, and  probably  with  the  sister  of  our  Lord's 
mother  in  John  19  :  25.  (See  note  on  Mark  3  : 
17.) 

Between  the  record  of  the  death  and  that 
of  the  descent  from  the  cross  John  inserts  the 
narrative,  which  he  alone  has  preserved,  of  the 
breaking  of  the  legs  of  the  two  robbers,  in  order 
to  hasten  their  death  before  the  beginning  of  the 
Jewish  Salibath,  and  of  the  piercing  of  the  side 
of  Jesus  with  the  soldier's  spear,  in  order  to  test 
the  reality  of  his  death,  or  rather  to  decide  the 
question,  if  there  was  any  doubt.  It  is  from 
the  outflow  of  "blood  and  water"  that  the 
inference  is  drawn  respecting  the  physical  cause 
of  his  death. 

42-47.  THE  DESCENT  FROM  THE 
CROSS,  AND  THE  BURIAL  OF  JESUS. 
Parallels,  Matt.  27  :  57-61 ;  Luke  23  :  50-56 ; 
John  19  :  38-42. 

42.  The  natural  inference  is  that  the  deatli 
occurred  not  long  after  the  ninth  hour — i.  e.  at 
between  three  and  four  o'clock  by  our  reckon- 
ing. The  Sabbath  would  begin  at  sunset.  It 
was  common  enough  for  the  Romans  to  leave 
the  bodies  of  the  crucified  on  the  cross — indeed, 
they  often  remained  there  till  they  were  de- 
voured by  birds  or  fell  to  pieces  in  decay — but 
this  execution  had  taken  place  under  JewisJi 
allspices,  and  the  Jews  would  not  be  willing,  in 


view  of  the  prohibition  in  Deut.  21  :  23,  that 
the  bodj^  of  Jesus  should  remain  all  night  on 
the  cross,  and  still  less  over  the  Sabbath,  which, 
as  the  Sabbath  of  the  passover  week,  was  "a 
great  day"  (johni9:3i).  —  The  Preparation, 
that  is,  the  day  before  the  sabbath.  A 
valuable  definition,  because  it  removes  the 
suspicion  that  the  same  word  may  elsewhere 
mean  the  day  before  the  passover. — The  time, 
when  the  even  was  come,  cannot  be  more 
closely  defined,  but  it  cannot  have  been  long 
after  the  death  of  our  Saviour. 

43.  Joseph  of  Arimathaea,  or  "who  was 
from  Arimathsea."  Mentioned  on  this  occasion 
only,  his  name  and  residence  being  given  by 
all  four  evangelists. — Arimathgea  is  of  uncertain 
site.  It  is  commonly  identified  with  Ramah, 
or  Ramathaim-zophim,  the  home  of  Elkanah, 
the  father  of  Samuel  (i  sam.  i  :i;  2:n) — a  place 
which  is  known  in  the  Septuagint  as  "  Anna- 
thaim."  The  identification  is  probably  correct, 
but  the  site  of  Ramah  has  long  been  in  doubt. 
The  best  modern  theory  follows  a  somewhat 
ancient  tradition  in  locating  it  at  Nchy  Sannvil, 
about  four  miles  north-west  from  Jerusalem. 
This  site  would  satisfy  all  the  requirements  of 
the  history,  and  may  be  regarded  as  probably 
the  true  one. — Concerning  Joseph  himself,  we 
learn  from  Matthew  that  he  was  a  rich  man  ; 
from  Mark,  that  he  was  an  honorable  coun- 
sellor, or,  more  probably,  "a  counsellor  of 
honorable  estate,"  a  rich  and  prosperous  man. 
Luke  as  well  as  Mark  calls  him  a  counsellor, 
which  means,  here,  a  member  of  the  council, 
or  Sanhedrin,  of  the  Jews.  Luke  further  calls 
him  "  a  good  man  and  a  just,"  and  adds  that 
"  he  had  not  consented  to  their  counsel  and 
deed."  Apparently,  he  had  been  absent  from 
the  meeting;  perhaps  intentionally  omitted 
from  the  call,  perhaps  absent  at  daybreak, 
when  the  meeting  was  held,  at  his  home  in 
Arimathsea. — Concerning  his  relations  to  Jesus, 
we  have  in  Mark  and  Luke  that  he  waited,  or 
was  looking,  for  the  kingdom  of  God  (com- 
pare Luke  2  :  25,  38),  by  which  is  meant  tliat 
he  was  a  devout  Jew  who  delighted  in  the 
promises  of  God  concerning  his  coming  king- 
dom and  was  expecting  their  early  fulfilment. 
The  phrase  does  not  declare  that  he  was  a 
disciple  of  Jesus,  but  it  does  represent  him  as 


I 


Ch.  XV.] 


MARK. 


249 


44  And  Pilate  marvelled  if  he  were  already  dead: 
and  calling  uuta  him  the  centurion,  he  asked  hira 
whcllior  he  had  been  any  while  dead. 

I'l  And  wlien  he  knew  it  of  the  centurion,  he  gave 
the  liody  to  .losei)h. 

4r>  And  he  hoiight  fine  linen,  and  took  him  down, 
and  wrapped  him  in  the  linen,  and  laid  him  in  a  se|)- 
ulchre  which  was  hewn  out  of  a  rock,  and  rolled  a 
stone"  unto  the  door  of  the  sepulchre. 


44  and  asked  for  the  hody  of  Jesus.  And  Pilate  mar- 
velled if  he  were  already  dead :  and  calling  unto  him 
the  centurion,  he  a.-^ked  him  whether  he  'had  heeii 
4.")  any  while  dead.  And  when  he  learned  it  of  t  he  cen- 
40turion.  he  granted  the  corpse  to  .)<K-eph.  .And  he 
bought  a  linen  clotli,  and  taking  h..u  down,  wound 
him  in  the  linen  clulh.  and  laid  him  in  a  tomb 
which  had  been  hewn  out  of  a  rock  ;  and  he  rolled 


a  cb.  16 :  3,  4. 1  Many  ancient  authorities  read  were  already  dead. 


one  of  tliose  who  were  ready  for  disciplesliip. 
Mattliew  says,  liowcver,  tliat  he  "  was  a  disciple 
of  Je.sus,'"  and  John  says  the  same,  adding, 
"  but  secretly,  for  fear  of  the  Jews."  Thus  he 
belonged  to  the  class  mentioned  in  John  12  : 
42,  43.  Not  until  now,  apparently,  had  his 
convictions  in  favor  of  Jesus  brought  him  to 
frank  confession.  His  position  was  a  trying 
one,  and  ho  had  not  had  moral  power  to  con- 
quer its  difiieuities.  But  now,  "the  Lord 
being  merciful  unto  him,"  as  he  was  to  Lot  in 
Sodom  (Gen.  19:16),  lie  was  brought  forth  out  of 
his  false  position,  love  and  sorrow  being  the 
messengers  that  led  him  forth. — He  came — /.  e. 
to  the  place  of  crucifi.xion.  Perhaps  the  won!, 
standing  where  it  does,  indicates  that  he  arrived 
at  the  place  when  Jesus  was  dying  or  dead, 
having  only  then  come  into  the  city  from  his 
home.  If  he  had  been  at  Arimathsea  since 
the  night  before,  he  may  have  known  nothing 
of  what  wa-s  going  on  ;  in  which  case  the  sud- 
den amazement  would  swell  the  tide  of  liis 
indignation  and  horror,  and  easily  lead  him  be- 
yond his  former  self  in  devotion  to  the  Cruci- 
fied One. — The  participle  does  not  merely  mean 
boldly;  it  means,  "  wa.xing  bold,"  coming  to 
new  boldness.  The  word  is  peculiar  to  ^lark. — 
In  tliis  new  boldness  he  went  in  unto  Pilate, 
to  his  house  or  place  of  judgment,  whither  the 
chief  priests  would  not  go  for  fear  of  defile- 
ment (John  18: 28).  There  lie  craved — or,  liter- 
ally, "asked" — the  body  of  Jesus.  So,  iden- 
tically, the  synoj)tists;  John,  "asked  that  he 
might  take  away  the  body  of  Jesus." 

44,  45.  The  mention  of  Pilate's  wonder  and 
iiKpiiry  is  peculiar  to  Mark.  Plainly,  Pilate  did 
not  know  of  the  breaking  of  the  legs  of  the 
robbers.  Only  a  few  hours  had  passed,  and  it 
fieemed  iiniiossible  tliat  Jesus  was  dead.  Not 
improbably,  there  was  a  shock  to  Pilate's  mind 
in  the  tidings:  he  had  lumastly  wished  to  save 
iiim,  and  so  .«<ion  all  was  over!  Calling  unto 
him  the  centurion,  he  asked  him  whether 
he  had  been  dead  long  (pnlai),  not  any 
while. — There  is  a  certain  rough  tenderness 
in  Pilate  here;  he  would  do  what  he  could  to 
preserve  the  Crucified  One  from  insult  and  lielp 
him  to  honorable  burial ;  so,  the  death  being 


officially  confirmed,  he  gave  the  body  (or. 
rather,  "granted  the  corjjse";  to  Joseph. 
So  the  best  text :  ptoma,  instead  of  soma. — Here 
John  adds,  "  he  came  therefore,  and  took  away 
his  body."  Here,  also,  John  tells  of  the  com- 
ing of  a  helper  to  Joseph — a  man  of  the  same 
class,  a  fellow-member  of  the  Sanhedrin,  an- 
other secret  disciple — Nicodemus,  who  came  to 
Jesus  by  night  (John  3 :  i).  His  accession  now  is 
a  surprise  to  us,  but  it  may  not  have  been  to 
Joseph.  He  has  appeared  before  only  in  that 
nightly  conversation,  and  as  pleading  for  candor 
in  the  judgment  respecting  Jesus,  and  taunted 
by  his  companions  as  if  they  already  suspected 
him  of  a  kind  of  disciplesliip  (Johm:  50-52).  He 
now  brought  "a  mixture  of  myrrh  and  aloes" 
— i.  e.  of  tiie  aromatics  used  in  preparing  the 
dead  for  burial  —  "about  a  hundred  pounds 
weight."  This  was  not  necessarily  bought  be- 
forehand ;  speedy  burials  were  common  in  that 
land,  and  rapid  preparation  must  liave  been 
common  too.  ^loreover,  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  Nicodemus  knew  all  the  day  what 
was  going  on.  He  may  have  been  preparing 
while  Jesus  was  dying.  So  there  is  no  reason 
to  sui)pose,  as  some  have  done,  that  his  prep- 
aration was  parallel  to  that  of  Mary  of  Bethany, 
made  beforehand  (Mark  u:  8). — There  is  some- 
thing extremely  touching  about  the  coming  of 
these  two  men  to  bury  the  body  of  him  wlioin 
they  had  not  publicly  confessed  when  he  was 
alive.  The  shock  of  sorrow  and  indignation 
quickened  love  and  rendered  secret  di.scipleship 
no  longer  possible.  If  the  two  men  were  thus 
drawn  to  Jesus  in  his  extremest  humiliation,  it 
seems  likely  that  by  his  resurrection  their  faith 
would  be  contirmed  and  reiulcred  permanent. 

46.  The  fine  linen  was  the  Khirlon,  tliesame 
a.s  that  mentioned  at  chap.  14  :  .)! — a  foreign 
fabric,  jirobably  Indian,  said  to  have  been  used 
in  Egypt  as  a  wrapping  for  mummies.  In  later 
Creek,  however,  the  word  means  "  linen."  It 
can  scarcely  be  said  to  define  positively  the  na- 
ture of  the  cloth.  Mark  alone  says  that  it  was 
bought  now,  at  the  very  time  wlien  it  was  to  be 
used. — Wrapped  him  in  the  linen.  The 
wrapping  in  this  cloth  was  not  a  mere  enfold- 
ing of  the  body,  but,  at  least  in  piu:t,.tiie  closer' 


250 


MAKK. 


[Ch.  XV. 


47  And   Mary  Magdalene   and   Mary  the  mother  of 
Joses  beheld  where  he  was  laid. 


47  a  stone  against  the  door  of  the  tomb.  And  Mary 
Magdalene  and  Wary  the  mother  of  Joses  beheld 
where  he  was  laid. 


wrapping  or  jinding  (John,  "  tliey  took  the 
body  of  Jesus,  and  wound  it  in  linen  clothes 
with  the  spices")  which  was  customary  among 
the  Jews.  When  Lazarus  came  forth,  he  was 
"  bound  hand  and  foot  with  grave-clothes " 
(John  n :  H),  each  limb  wrapped  up  by  itself. 
This  wrapping,  however,  in  the  case  of  Jesus, 
was  left  untinished  because  of  hast'e,  the  Sab- 
bath coming  quiclvly  on. — Observe  that  the  very 
thought  of  preparing  the  body  thus  for  burial 
was  inconsistent  with  all  thought  of  a  resurrec- 
tion.— Of  the  site  and  ownership  of  the  sepul- 
chre Mark  tells  us  nothing,  saying  merely  that 


STONE   AT   MOUTH    OF   SEPULCHRE. 

it  was  hewn  out  of  a  rock,  or,  rather,  "  out 
of  the  rock  " — i.  e.  not  a  natural  cavern,  such  as 
were  frequently  used  for  tombs.  Matthew  and 
Luke  note  the  same  fact,  Luke  using  a  word 
{laxeiitos)  that  points  a  little  more  definitely  to 
the  skilful  workmanshiji  of  which  the  tomb 
gave  evidence.  It  was  no  rude  cave  in  which 
he  was  laid,  but  a  carefully-made  sepulchre. 
Luke  and  John  tell  us  that  it  was  new  and  had 
never  before  been  used  ;  Matthew,  by  a  single 
word,  that  it  was  the  property  of  Joseph.  From 
John  we  learn  that  it  was  in  a  "  garden "  or 
orchard,  an  enclosed  and  cultivated  place — the 
same  word  that  is  used  of  Gethsemane — and 


that  the  garden  was  "in  the  place  where  he 
was  crucified  "—i.  e.  close  at  liand.  The  near- 
ness of  the  spot  is  given  by  John,  who  says 
nothing  of  Jo.seph's  ownership  as  the  reason  for 
selecting  it,  the  approach  of  the  Sabbath  requir- 
ing haste. — Having  thus  placed  the  body,  Joseph 
rolled  a  stone  unto,  or  against  {epi),  the 
door  of  the  sepulchre.  Matthew,  "  a  great 
stone."  The  illustration  represents  the  tomb  de- 
scribed in  the  following  passage :  "  In  Jerusalem 
has  been  found  a  peculiar  tomb.  The  sloping 
ground  has  been  cut  down  perpendicularly 
and  the  rock  is  cut  out,  so  that  the  front 
wall  is  of  perpendicular  rock.  There  is  a 
chamber  within,  containing  a  table  of  stone 
on  which  to  prepare  the  body  for  burial  and 
a  stone  bowl  for  water.  Within  this  is  the 
tomb  itself,  an  inner  chamber,  with  shelves 
to  receive  the  bodies.  The  entrance  to  this 
is  an  opening  in  the  upright  rock-wall  three 
feet  square.  Running  across  before  this 
opening,  at  the  foot  of  the  wall  in  which 
it  is  made,  is  a  groove  in  the  floor,  one  foot 
deep  and  six  inches  wide.  In  this  groove 
is  a  round  stone,  six  inclies  thick,  just  fit- 
ting the  groove,  and  four  feet  or  more  in 
diameter — a  stone  like  a  grindstone.  This 
runs  in  the  groove,  and  can  be  rolled  up 
before  the  square  opening  so  as  to  cover  it, 
and  rolled  away  from  it  so  as  to  give  en- 
trance. It  is  so  heavy  that  the  full  strength 
of  a  man  is  required  to  roll  it  away.  If 
Joseph's  new  tomb  were  like  this,  the  wo- 
men might  well  ask  who  should  roll  away 
the  stone  for  them."  The  date  of  this  tomb, 
however,  seems  to  be  unknown,  and  so 
high  an  authority  in  Jewish  customs  as  Dr. 
p]dersheim  ajjpcars  to  know  nothing  of  such 
structures.  (See  Bible  Educator,  vol.  iv.,  p. 
332.)  It  is  certain  that  rock-hewn  tombs 
ustially  had  doors  of  stone  that  turned  on 
hinges.  (See  Hackett's  Illnstr(itiu)is  of  Scripture, 
p.  108;  Van  Lenncp's  Bible  Lands,  p.  580.)  If 
Joseph's  new  tomb,  perhaps  unfinished,  had 
such  a  door,  with  its  fastenings  yet  uncom- 
pleted, he  may,  for  additional  security,  have 
caused  a  stone  so  large  as  to  be  moved  only 
with  difficulty  to  be  rolled  up  against  it,  on  the 
outside. 

47.  The  women  had  remained  at  the  cross 
when  no  apostle  was  there,  and  now  they  fol- 
lowed to  the  sepulchre,  where  new  friends  were 
doing  the  work  that  belonged  to  old.     Only 
i  two  are  mentioned  here  and  in  Matthew ;  in 


Ch.  XVI.] 


MARK. 


251 


CHAPTER   XVI. 


AND  when"  the  sabbath  was  past,  Mary  Magdalene,  aud 
Mary  the  muthrr  of  .lames,  and  ."-alouie,  had  bought 
sweet  spices,'  that  they  might  come  and  anoint  him.       | 
'2  .\nd  very  early  in  the  morning,  the  first  tuiy  of  the  I 
week,  they  came  uiito  the  sepulclire  at  the  rising  of  the  I 
sun. 


1  And  when  the  sabbath  was  past,  Mary  Magdalene, 
and  Mary  the  inuUu-r  of  James,  and  .Salome,  bought 

2  spices,  that  they  might  come  and  anoint  him.     .uid 
very  early  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  they  come 


a  Matt.  28:  1;  Luke  24  : 1,  etc. ;  Jobn  20  :  l....i  Luke  23  :  56. 


Luke,  the  women  generally  who  had  followed 
from  Galilee.  Matthew  shuw^^  them  "  sitting 
over  against  the  si-pulchre;"  Mark  says  that 
they  beheld  where  he  was  laid  ;  and  Luke 
shows  them  present  and  watehful  during  the 
entomhment.  He  also  shows  them  going  home 
and  pre[)aring  spices  to  finish  tlie  embalming, 
but  not  till  after  the  Sabbath.  (See  the  true 
division  of  paragraphs  in  Luke,  in  the  Re- 
vision.)— That  Sabbath  was  to  be  "  a  high-day" 
with  the  Jews  ;  to  tlie  disciples  it  was  a  day  of 
despair.  In  truth,  it  wius  the  turning-point  of 
time,  though  neither  Jews  nor  disciples  knew 
it.  The  crime  of  the  Jews  and  of  sinful  human- 
ity was  completed ;  the  revelation  of  God  as 
Saviour  had  been  made;  the  work  of  prepar- 
atory dispensations  was  ended ;  all  was  ready 
for  the  breaking  forth  of  the  new  power  of  God 
unto  salvation.  But  that  Jewish  Sabbath  be- 
fore the  dawning  of  the  first  Lord's  Day  was 
the  time  of  pause  and  silence :  the  Prince  of 
Life  lay  dead,  and  all  hopes  seemed  disappoint- 
ed;  the  new  power  was  as  yet  unknown  and 
undreamed  of  in  the  world.  No  day  was  ever 
like  that,  or  ever  shall  be. 

Matthew  adds  the  record  of  what  was  done 
after  the  night  had  passed:  the  enemies  of  Je- 
sus secured  the  placing  of  the  official  seal  of 
the  governor  on  the  door  of  the  tomb  and  the 
setting  of  a  guard  there,  under  pretence  of  fear 
that  his  friends  might  steal  his  body  and  de- 
clare that  he  had  risen. 


1-8.  THE  MEETING  OF  THE  WOMEN 
WITH  AN  ANGEL  AT  THE  SEPULCHRE, 
AND  THE  ANNOUNCEMENT  OF  THE  RES- 
URRECTION OF  JESUS.  Parallel,  Matt.  28  : 
1-8;  Luke  24  :  1-8.— The  narrative  of  John  is 
so  different  in  form  that  definite  parallelism  can 
scarcely  be  indicated.  Concerning  the  narra- 
tives of  the  resurrection  generally,  it  is  to  be 
remarked  tiuit  they  are  fragmentary  and  not 
easily  combined  into  a  continuous  .story.  In- 
stead of  insisting  upon  a  complete  and  detailed 
harmony  in  this  part  of  the  historj',  it  is  better 
to  recognize  the  fact  that  we  have  four  frag- 
mentary records  of  tliis  great  event,  and  to 
study  them  rather  by  compari.son  than  by 
combination.  In  the  fragmentary  character 
of  the  narratives  objectors  have  often  thought 


they  found  reason  for  doubt  of  the  reality  of 
the  resurrection.  But  a  wiser  view  of  the  mat- 
ter would  regard  the  brevity  and  simplicity  of 
the  narratives  as  a  sign  of  the  perfect  h(jnesty 
of  the  writers  and  of  the  unquestionableness 
of  the  event.  It  is  plain  that  tlie  evangelists 
were  unconscious  of  any  necessity  for  special 
effort  in  proving  that  the  Lord  had  arisen. 
Their  narratives  are  those  of  men  to  whom 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  an  absolute  and 
unquestionable  certainty. 

1.  When  the  sabbath  was  past — i.e.  after 
sunset  of  Saturday.  Here  again  the  three  women 
are  mentioned,  as  at  chap.  15  :  40 ;  two  of  them, 
Salome  being  omitted,  were  mentioned  again  at 
verse  47. — The  second  Mary  is  here  the  moth- 
er of  James ;  in  the  i)receding  verse  she  was 
called  the  mother  of  Joses ;  at  cliap.  15  :  40, 
"  the  mother  of  James  the  less  and  of  Joses." 
No  reason  can  be  given  for  the  variation. — 
Bought  sweet  spices.  Not  had  bought. 
The  places  of  business  in  Jerusalem  were 
opened  after  sunset  of  the  Sabbath,  and  it  was 
then  that  they  went  to  buy.— That  they  might 
come  and  anoint  him.  Complete  the  em- 
balming. Why,  after  what  Nicodemus  had 
done?  We  can  answer  only  by  remembering 
the  great  importance  of  sepulture  in  the  esteem 
of  the  Jews,  the  interest  that  attached  to  it,  and 
the  unutterable  personal  afTection  that  in  the 
present  case  imi^elled  the  women  to  insist  upon 
having  a  share  in  whatever  was  done  for  .lesus. 
Observe,  again,  that  their  purpose  implied  the 
full  conviction  that  his  death  was  real  and  final, 
like  any  other  death.  The  wretched  Sabbath 
that  had  intervened  brought  no  new  thoughts 
to  their  minds  and  no  convincing  rememlirance 
of  the  Master's  prediction.  No  disciple,  ap- 
parently, had  been  able  even  to  suggest  to  an- 
other the  thought  of  a  resurrection.  In  this 
blank  desjiair  of  theirs  we  have  a  most  valuable 
confirmation  of  tlie  event.  If  they  had  been  ex- 
pecting a  resurrection,  we  might  have  thought 
them  less  trustworthy  in  their  declaration  that 
it  occurred ;  but  they  came  to  the  tomb  to  com- 
plete the  embalming. 

2-4.  Here  we  reach  the  region  where  the 
four  narratives,  being  fragmentary',  cannot  be 
combined  without  the  help  of  hypothesis. — 
At  the  rising  of  the  sun.    Rather,  "  the  sun 


252 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


3  And  they  said  among  themselves,  Who  shall  roll 
us  away  the  stone  from  the  door  of  the  sepulchre? 

4  And  when  they  looked,  they  saw  that  the  stone 
■was  rolled  away,  for  it  was  very  ereat. 

o  And  entering  into  the  sepulelire,  they  saw  a  young 
man  sitting  on  the  right  side,  clothed  in  a  long  white 
garment ;  and  they  were  attrighted. 

t>  And  he  saith  unto  them,  Be  not  affrighted :  ye 
seek  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  which  was  crucified  ;  he  is 
risen  :  "he  is  not  here :  behold  the  place  where  they 
laid  him. 


3  to  the  tomb  when  the  sun  was  risen.  And  they 
were   saying  among  themselves,  AN  ho  shall  roll  us 

4  away  the  stone  from  the  door  of  the  touib?  and 
looking  up,  they  see  that  the  stone  is  rolled  back: 

5  for  it  was  exceeding  great.  And  entering  into  the 
tomb,  they  saw  a  young  man  sitting  on  the  right 
side,   arrayed    in    a    white    robe ;    and    they   were 

6  amazed.  And  he  saith  unto  them.  Be  not  amazed  : 
ye  seek  Jesus,  the  Kazarene,  who  hath  been  cruci- 
fied :  he  is  risen  ;  he  is  not  here :  behold,  the  place 


having  risen,"  which  is  tlie  literal  translation 
of  Mark's  designation  of  the  time.  The  sug- 
gestions in  the  other  Gospels  of  an  earlier  com- 
ing may  possibly  be  referred  to  the  time  of 
setting  out,  and  the  state  of  the  morning  light 
as  the  women  recalled  it  in  remembering  their 
walk  as  a  whole.  Mark  certainly  places  their 
arrival  at  or  just  after  the  rising  of  the  sun. — 
The  conversation  is  perfectly  natural.  They 
said,  or  were  saying,  among  themselves, 
as  they  approached  the  place,  Who  shall  roll 
us  away  the  stone  ?  It  is  not  at  all  strange 
that  in  the  agitation  of  the  time  they  should 
prepare  themselves,  and  even  find  themselves 
almost  there,  without  ever  thinking  of  the 
great  stone,  especially  if  the  rolling  of  it  up  to 
the  door  was  something  that  was  not  always 
done.  As  for  the  guard  (Matt.  27:62-66),  there  is 
no  evidence  that  the  women  knew  of  its  exist- 
ence. It  was  placed  there  on  the  morning  of 
the  Sabbath,  on  which  day  they  had  been 
quietly  at  home  (Luke  23 :  56).  Mark's  graphic 
account  of  their  surprise  is,  literally,  "  And 
looking  up,  they  see  that  the  stone  hath  been 
rolled  away." — For  it  was  very  great  is  com- 
monly taken  as  an  explanation  of  the  question 
of  the  women ;  by  some,  as  an  explanation  of 
the  fact  that  when  their  eyes  were  lifted,  having 
been  downcast  before,  they  could  not  fail  to 
notice  that  tbe  stone  had  been  rolled  away. 
The  rolling  away  of  the  stone  is  mentioned 
by  all  the  evangelists ;  the  conversation  of  the 
women  about  it,  by  Mark  alone. 

5.  The  women  are  three  in  Mark,  two  (the 
two  Marys)  in  Matthew,  of  indeterminate  num- 
ber in  Luke ;  John  speaks  only  of  Mary  Mag- 
dalene. According  to  Mark's  report,  they 
entered  at  once  into  the  tomb  and  found  a 
young  man  sitting  on  the  right  side, 
clothed  in  a  long  white  garment,  or,  more 
literally,  "  arrayed  in  a  wlnte  robe."  The  de- 
scription all  peculiar  to  Mark. — The  young 
man  is  not  called,  in  Mark,  an  angel,  and 
neither  here  nor  in  any  other  of  the  re})orts  is 
there  any  indication  that  he  was  endowed  with 
wings,  as  angels  are  by  the  hands  of  artists; 


rather  is  it  denied  by  implication.  Matthew 
describes  the  angel  with  the  thought  of  his 
splendor  in  mind;  Mark  much  more  simply, 
reijresenting  him  almost  like  one  of  the  young 
Levites  that  ministered  iia  the  temple ;  Luke, 
who  speaks  of  two  messengers,  mentions  only 
the  brilliancy  of  their  raiment :  he  calls  them 
"  two  men."  (Compare  the  same  language  at 
Acts  1  :  10.) 

6,  7.  The  first  words  were  addressed  to  the 
fear  of  the  women,  or  rather  to  their  amaze- 
ment, for  such  is  the  meaning  of  the  word; 
they  were  overwhelmed  with  wonder.  —  The 
words  of  the  young  man,  in  Mark,  are  calm 
and  measured ;  the  utterance  in  Luke  is  much 
more  rapid  and  exultant:  "  Why  seek  ye  him 
that  liveth,  among  the  dead  ?"  But  here  (liter- 
ally), "  Be  not  amazed :  ye  seek  Jesus,  the 
Nazarene,  who  hath  been  crucified."  —  The 
words  that  follow  are  the  same  in  all  three, 
only  the  order  and  connectives  being  changed. 
He  is  risen :  he  is  not  here.  Tlie  Living 
One  is  not  among  the  dead ;  this  is  not  the 
place  to  find  the  Crucified.  —  He  is  risen. 
How  few  words  tell  the  story !  No  one  on 
earth  was  able  yet  to  understand  it  and  rejoice, 
but  the  angel's  voice  must  have  been  tremulous 
with  the  joy  of  heaven  over  the  triumph  of 
the  Son  of  God. — Matthew  and  Mark  add  the 
request  to  the  women  to  come  and  see  the 
place  where  they  laid  him,  the  now  vacant 
place,  described  by  John  (20  5-7)  as  he  saw  it  a 
little  later — a  request  intended,  apparently,  to 
bring  conviction  and  assurance  to  their  minds. 
Yet  here  was  reproof  They  had  come  to  see 
that  very  place,  and  to  find  him  in  it  and  to  pre- 
pare his  body  to  remain  there — come,  after  all 
that  he  had  said,  with  never  a  thought  that 
they  could  find  it  empty.  They  had  come  to 
seek  him  as  the  Nazarene  who  had  been  cruci- 
fied ;  but  the  tone  of  the  heavenly  messenger 
suggests  that  they  might  have  been  prepared  to 
find  him  the  Conqueror  of  death. — The  women 
had  been  at  hand,  both  at  the  cross  and  at  the 
tomb,  when  the  apostles  were  absent,  and  now 
they  were  to  be  the  messengers  who  should 


Ch.  XVI.] 


MARK. 


253 


7  Kilt  go  your  way,  tell  his  disciples  and  Peter  that 
he  goeth  before  you  into  Ualilee :  there  shall  ye  see 
him,  as  he  said  unto  you. 


7  where  they  laid  him  !    But  go,  tell  his  disciples  and 
Peter,  lie  goeth  before  you  into  (jalilee:  there  shali 


call  the  apostles  back.  Go  your  way,  tell  \  In  evidence  of  the  reality  of  the  death  we 
his  disciples  and  Peter.  Peter,  as  the  lead-  i  have  (1)  the  positive,  natural,  and  evidently 
or  of  the  apostolic  band ;  still  marked  and  sincere  assertions  of  all  the  evangelists.  (2) 
treated  in  this  message  as  the  leader.  If  the  |  The  fact  of  a  lnjstility  in  the  Jews  that  would 
message  was  dictated  directly  by  .lesus,  the  in-  j  not  rest  satisfied  without  the  completion  of  its 
troiluction  of  Peter's  name  may  have  been  in-  i  work  in  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  that  could  not 
tended  directly  to  reassure  him  after  his  fall,  be  deceived  as  to  the  question  whether  he  was 
X^nquestionably  it  would  have  that  effect,  and  !  really  dead  or  not.  (3j  The  inquiry  on  the  part 
I)erhaps  we  have  a  record  of  the  impression  it  of  Pilate,  occasioned  by  wonder  at  the  an- 
made  upon  his  anxious  mind  in  the  fact  that  \  nouncement  of  so  speedy  a  death  (iiarkis:**). 


it  is  here,  in  the  Petrine  Gospel,  that  the  mes- 
sage is  recorded  in  this  form.  With  this  excep- 
tion, however,  the  record  of  Johti,  or  even  that 
of  Luke,  after  the  resurrection,  contains  more 


(4)  The  testimony  of  the  centurion  in  charge 
of  the  crucifixion  (Mark  is :  45),  and  the  further 
testimony  implied  in  the  act  of  the  soldiers 
under  his  command  in  not  breaking;  the  legs 


that  would  naturally  be  suggested  by  Peter's  j  of  Jesus  (John  19:32,33).  It  was  the  duty  of  these 
memory  tliaii  that  of  Mark.  (Compare  note  at  soldiers  to  watch  the  victim  of  crucifixion  until 
the  beginning  of  chap.  15.) — Tlie  women  were  [  death  had  occurred.  (5)  The  record  (John  19:34) 
bidden,  go  your  way,  tell  his  disciples,  of  a  spear — thrust  into  the  Lord's  side,  which 
If  John's  narrative  is  to  be  harmonized  with  would  of  itself  be  sufficient  to  produce  death, 
tliis,  we  must  suppose  that  Mary  Magdalene    if  it  had  not  already  occurred.     (6)   The  full 


had  arrived  before  the  others,  and  had  already 
gone  to  tell  Peter  and  John  that  some  strange 
tiling  had  happened  at  the  sepulchre,  though 
she  knew  not  yet  that  it  was  tlie  resurrection 
of  the  Lord. — That  he  goeth  before  you 
into  (>alilee  :  there  shall  ye  see  him,  as 
he  said  unto  you.  (See  Matt.  2(3 :  32.)  Yet 
he  did  not  go  at  once  to  Galilee,  but  met  the 
ajxistles,  as  well  as  the  women,  at  Jerusalem. 
The  explanation  probably  lies  in  the  fact  that 


and  detailed  account  of  embalmment  and  en- 
tombment in  all  the  Gospels.  (7)  The  intention 
of  the  women  to  complete,  after  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  had  intervened,  the  process  thus  be- 
gun (Luke  23  :  56:  24 : 1).  (8)  Tlic  Complete  despair 
that  aj>i>ears  in  the  conduct  of  the  disciples,  so 
Air  as  it  is  shown  to  us.  (9)  The  absence  of 
any  suspicion  to  the  contrary  in  the  proposal 
of  his  enemies  to  guard  the  sepulchre  (Matt.  27: 
63,  64).    (10)  The  omission  of  denial  of  the  reality 


Galilee  was  appointc.tl  to  be  the  scene  of  his  i  of  his  death  from  the  plan  that  was  devised  to 
luanife-station  of  himself  to  the  largest  assem-  j  protect  the  unfaithful  guards  (.Matt. 28: 11-15). — In 
bly  of  witnesses,  and  of  his  most  decisive  in-  these  points  we  have  the  evidence,  not  only  that 
structions.  (See  Matt.  28  :  1("),  with  1  Cor.  15  :  G.)  the  disciples  of  Jesus  believed  him  to  be  really 
He  did  precede  the  apostles  thither,  and  there  |  dead,  but  that  all  who  bore  an  important  part 
they  saw  him,  although  he  was  pleased  to  show  I  in  his  crucifixion  were  thoroughly  convinced 


Iiimself  to  them  earlier  in  Jerusalem. — Verse  7 
contains  the  utterance  as  given  in  Matthew  ;  in 
Luke,  the  angel  reminds  the  women,  instead, 
of  Jesus'  own  prediction  of  his  death  and  his 
rising  again   on   the  third  day.      Luke  adds, 


of  the  reality  of  his  death. 

In  evidence  of  the  reality  of  the  resurrection 
we  have  (1)  the  direct  assertions  of  all  tlie  evan- 
gelists. It  is  absolutely  umiuestionable  that 
thev  intende<l  to  as-sert  the  realitv  of  the  rcsur- 


iiul  they  remembered  his  words." — Such  was  |  rection ;   and  there  is   no  reason  for  rejecting 


the  earliest  announcement  of  the  resurrection, 
No  glimpse,  not  even  the  faintest,  of  the  resur- 
rection itself  was  granted  to  any  iniman  being, 
friend  or  foe,  or  is  permitted  to  us.  Like  other 
events  of  s]nritual  significance,  it  "  came  not 
with   observation."     Doubtless   it  occurred  in 


their  testimony  here,  if  there  is  reiison  for  re- 
ceiving it  anywhere.  From  the  Gospels  in  gen- 
eral, overwhelming  evidence  of  their  personal 
honesty  can  be  gathered,  and  every  item  of  this 
evidence  is  valuable  as  confirming  the  truthful- 
ness of  this  part  of  their  story.     (2)  Since,  in 


quietness,  as  it  did  in  the  solitude  and  darkness  '  all  candor,  we  must  accept  this  testimony,  we 


of  the  fast-dosed  sepulchre. 

The  evidence  of  the  reality  of  the  resurrec- 
tion may  here  be  summarized.  As  preliminary 
to  it,  it  may  be  well  to  restate  also  the  proofs 
of  the  realitv  of  our  Saviour's  death. 


have,  conveye<l  by  means  of  it,  the  ri.sen  Lord's 
deliberate  testimony  to  the  reality  of  his  own 
resurrection.  In  Luke  (24:. 38-43)  and  in  John 
(20:27)  we  see  him  deliberately  offering  to  his 
disciples  phj'sical  proof  of  his  own  real  bodily 


254 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


8  And  they  went  out  quickly,  and  fled  from  the  sep- 
ulchre; for  they  trembled  and  were  amazed;  neither 
said  they  any  thing  to  any  man ;  for  they  were  afraid. 


8  ye  see  him,  as  he  said  unto  you.  And  they  went  out, 
and  fled  from  the  tomb ;  for  trembling  and  astonish- 
ment had  come  upon  them :  and  they  said  nothing 
to  any  one  ;  for  they  were  afraid. 


presence  among  them.  (Compare  the  language 
of  Acts  1  :  3.)  (3)  The  fact  that  the  Christian 
religion  immediately  sprang  up,  having  the  a.s- 
sertiun  of  this  fact  for  one  of  its  two  central 
doctrines.  Compare  1  Thess.  6  :  14 :  "If  we  be- 
lieve that  Jesus  died  and  rose  again."  In  preach- 
ing tlie  new  faith,  the  apostles  constantly  made 
these  two  assertions  with  equal  confidence,  be- 
ginning from  the  day  of  Pentecost  (Acts  2:24;  3: 
15 ;  4 :  10 ;  10 :  40 ;  1  Pet.  1:3).  It  has  already  appeared 
that  at  the  time  ot  Jesus'  death  his  disciples 
were  entertaining  no  hope  of  a  resurrection 
(Luke  24: 21).  It  is  impossible  to  suppose  them 
dishonest  in  their  subsequent  proclamation  of 
the  resurrection  as  a  fact.  The  fact  of  this 
proclamation  in  the  spiritual  power  that  was 
attendant  upon  it  cannot  be  legitimately  ac- 
counted for,  except  on  the  ground  that  the 
resurrection  was  real.  (4)  The  testimony  of 
the  apostle  Paul  to  the  reality  of  the  event. 
Paul  was  not  one  of  the  original  disciples,  but 
was  at  first  an  implacable  enemy.  His  testi- 
mony has  a  special  value,  therefore,  as  that  of 
a  separate  and  independent  witness.  He  be- 
came convinced  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
was  real  (i  cor.  i5:2o),  and  accepted  it  as  a  vital 
point  in  his  system  of  Christian  truth  (Rom.  i: 
2-5;  1  Cor.  15  :  12-17 ).  After  soiuc  twcuty-five  or 
thirty  years  had  elapsed  he  carefully  and  mi- 
nutely rehearsed  the  evidence  of  the  resurrec- 
tion (i  Cor.  !5 : 4-8),  aiid  was  able  to  appeal  to  more 
than  five  hundred  witnesses,  the  most  of  whom 
he  declared  to  be  still  alive.  In  his  preaching, 
as  well  as  in  his  writing,  he  constantly  asserted 
and  made  use  of  the  fact  (Acts  13 :  33-37 ;  n :  si ;  24 :  15 ; 
26:23).  (5)  The  existence  in  all  Christian  ages 
of  the  Ijord's  Day  (Rev.  i;9),  the  first  day  of  the 
week  (Acts  20:7).  As  we  have  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  a  visible  proof  of  our  Saviour's  death, 
so  in  the  Lord's  Day  we  have  an  historical  proof 
of  the  reality  of  his  resurrection. 

8.  Mark  shows  us  only  the  fear  of  the  wo- 
men ;  Matthew,  the  "  fear  and  great  joy."  In 
Mark  the  women  say  nothing  to  any  one ;  in 
Matthew  they  run  to  bring  word  to  his  disci- 
ples. Hence  some  have  inferred  that  the  group 
of  women  separated,  some  returning  to  the 
city  by  one  way  in  joy,  and  others  by  another 
way  in  terror.  But  it  scarcely  seems  possible 
that  Matthew  or  Mark  can  have  had  in  mind 
the  idea  of  a  division  of  the  company  of  wo- 
men, for  Matthew  mentions  only  two  women 
as  present,  and  Mark  only  three.    Others  place 


the  fear  before  the  meeting  with  Jesus  (Matt.  28 : 9) 
and  the  joy  after  it.  But  it  is  well  to  remember 
that  we  are  dealing  with  fragmentary  reports 
of  an  hour  of  intense  excitement  and  agitation. 
If  such  reports  vary  as  to  particulars,  the  jires- 
ence  of  so  amazing  a  fact  as  that  of  which  they 
tell  is  the  best  explanation  of  the  variety,  and 
so  the  best  harmony  for  the  narratives. 

For  they  were  afraid  {cphobounto  gar). 
Here  Mark's  direct  and  continuous  narrative, 
in  parallelism  with  Matthew,  ceases ;  for  what- 
ever we  may  think  of  the  verses  that  follow,  as 
to  their  source  and  authority,  it  is  certain  that 
from  this  point  there  is  a  change  of  tone  and 
of  method.  There  is  no  longer  a  narrative  of 
events,  but  rather  a  summary,  brief  and  com- 
pendious, and  apparently  so  by  intention. 
Where  we  expect  the  story  to  go  on  and  tell  of 
the  meeting  of  the  disciples  with  the  Lord  we 
meet  with  a  new  paragraph,  starting  in  a  new 
style,  and  dealing  in  a  new  way  with  a  part  of 
the  events  that  are  given  in  detail  by  the  other 
evangelists.  It  is  incredible,  however,  that 
Mark  desired  to  close  his  Gospel  with  verse  8. 
Ending  there,  it  would  be  incomplete,  not  only 
in  a  rhett)rical  sense,  but  historically  also,  for 
it  would  contain  no  proof  of  the  resurrection, 
beyond  the  announcement  of  it  by  the  angels. 
Some  conclusion  beyond  the  eighth  verse  the 
author  must  at  least  have  had  in  contempla- 
tion. 

9-20.  SUMMARY  OF  EVENTS  AFTER 
THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS.  The  Par- 
allel Passages  will  be  noted  verse  by  verse. 

By  the  revisers  these  verses  are  set  by  them- 
selves with  the  remark,  "  The  two  oldest  Greek 
manuscripts,  and  some  other  authorities,  omit 
from  verse  9  to  the  end.  Some  other  author- 
ities have  a  different  ending  to  the  Gospel." 
Doubtless  the  revisers  would  not  be  understood 
to  mean  that  the  "different  ending"  was  of 
any  value.  They  would  only  cite  its  existence 
in  some  ancient  authorities  as  a  sign  of  uncer- 
tainty as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  present  end- 
ing. The  majority  of  modern  authorities  re- 
gard these  verses  as  the  work  of  some  other 
person  than  Mark.  I'he  most  elaborate  defence 
of  their  genuineness  is  by  the  Rev.  J.  W.  Bur- 
gon  ( The  Last  Twelve  Verses  of  St.  3Iark's  Gospel 
Vindicated).  The  argument  in  their  favor  may 
be  found  clearly  stated  in  Scrivener's  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament  (second 
edition,  pp.  507-513).     Dr.  J.  A.  Broadus  has 


Ch.  XVI.] 


MARK. 


255 


argued  on  the  same  side  in  the  Baptist  Qicarter- 
lij,  July,  1869.  The  reasons  for  regarding  the 
piisfsage  as  the  work  of  another  hand  than  that 
of  Mark  are  given  by  Alford  in  his  Commentary, 
and  hy  Meyer.  The  po.ssible  conjectures  as  to 
tlie  history  of  the  passage  are  given  by  Dr. 
Phiniptrc  in  Ellicott's  New  Testament  Commen- 
tarij  for  English  Readers.  It  is  to  be  noticed 
tliat  tlie  revisers  do  not  enclose  the  passage  in 
brackets  a.s  tliey  do  John  7  :  53-8  :  11,  evidently 
regarding  the  argument  against  it  as  less  conclu- 
sive tlian  the  one  against  that  pas.sage. 

The  rea-sons  against  it  arc,  briefly,  as  follows: 
(1)  The  pa-ssage  is  omitted  from  the  two  oldest 
manuscripts,  tlie  Sinaitic  and  the  Vatican.  In 
the  latter  a  blank  space  is  left,  as  if  the  writer 
knew  that  the  Gospel  was  incomplete,  but  was 
not  in  possession  of  the  conclusion.  It  is 
omitted  also  froni  a  few  other  manuscripts, 
of  nnu'h  less  authority  than  the.se  two,  and  in 
a  few  copies  of  four  ancient  versions.  (2)  Euse- 
bius,  in  the  fourth  century,  making  more  or  less 
use  of  tlie  work  of  Ammonius  in  the  second, 
arranged  the  four  Gospels  in  parallel  passages 
on  the  iiriiiciple  of  a  harmony,  and  from  this 
arrangement  these  verses  are  omitted.  Euse- 
bius  says,  moreover,  that  they  are  not  found  in 
'  the  correct  copies  " — a  statement  in  which  he 
is  followed  by  Jerome  and  others,  whose  names 
are  of  less  weight.  (.3)  As  to  the  internal  ev- 
idence, there  is  no  good  connection  between  the 
jiassage  and  what  precedes  it,  and  no  allusion 
in  it  to  tlie  context;  the  purjxise  of  it  is  not  a 
continuation  of  the  jnirposc  of  Mark's  record; 
it  hiis  the  character  of  an  epitome,  in  which  it 
is  unlike  anything  else  in  Mark ;  it  contains 
certain  additicms  to  tlie  statements  of  the  other 
Gospels,  but  they  are  not  in  the  least  like  Shirk's 
characteristic  additions;  the  peculiar  words  and 
l)lira.ses  of  Mark  arc  absent,  and  about  twenty 
words  and  phrases  are  found  that  occur  nowhere 
else  in  liis  Gospel. 

The  reasons  in  favor  of  the  passage  are  as  fol- 
lows :  (1)  It  is  contained  in  all  the  ancient  man- 
uscripts except  those  mentioned  above,  and  in 
all  the  versions.  (2)  The  nineteenth  verse  is 
(pioted  by  Irenanis  (about  a.  d.  170)  with  the 
iiitnxluction,  "  Mark  says,  at  the  end  of  the 
Gospel."  From  that  time  on  the  passage  is 
freely  cited  by  Christian  writers  generally,  who 
treat  it  as  they  do  other  Scripture.  (3)  It  has  a 
l>hu-e  in  the  lectionaries,  or  selections  of  Scrip- 
ture for  public  reading,  which  were  in  use  in 
the  P^astern  Church  "certainly  in  the  fourth 
century,  very  probably  much  earlier"  (Scriv- 
e)irr).  It  held  a  ])lace  of  honor,  indeed,  in  be- 
ing taken, as  the  Si'ripture  for  a  special  service 


at  matins  on  Ascension  Day.  There  is  no  ques- 
tion that  the  pjissage  came  down,  to  say  the 
least,  from  very  nearly  the  .same  date  as  the 
Gospel  of  Mark,  or  that  it  was  generally,  though 
not  universally,  accepted  in  the  church  as  apart 
of  that  Gospel. 

If  the  passage  is  not  Mark's,  the  problem  la 
to  account  for  its  almost  universal  acceptance 
from  the  earliest  times  as  a  part  of  his  G(jspel ; 
if  the  passage  is  Mark's,  the  problem  is  to  ac- 
count for  the  fact  that  his  Gospel  was  known 
and  received  in  some  parts  of  the  church  with- 
out it ;  and  the  further  problem  remains  to  tell 
why  Mark  so  suddenly  broke  off  his  narrative 
in  the  midst  and  epitomized  the  remaining  his- 
tory, doing  it,  moreover,  in  a  style  so  unlike 
that  of  his  ordinary  writing.  It  may  be  said, 
in  general,  that  external  evidence  is  mainly, 
but  with  important  exceptions,  in  favor  of  the 
acceptance  of  the  pa.'ssage  as  the  production  of 
Mark,  and  that  internal  evidence  is  mainly, 
and  without  important  ftxcei)tions,  against  it. 
The  difficulties  on  account  of  internal  evidence 
would  remain,  somewhat  diminished,  ])crhaps, 
but  not  destroyed,  if  it  were  supposed  that  Mark 
himself  at  a  later  time  added  this  concluding 
paragraph  ;  and  the  abrupt  ending  of  his  orig- 
inal Gospel  would  still  have  to  be  accounted 
for. 

The  writer  of  this  Commentary  is  unable  to 
treat  these  verses  as  if  they  were  the  work  of 
the  same  hand  tliat  produced  the  Gospel  of 
Mark.  The  best  explanation  of  the  peculiar 
state  of  facts  about  the  pa.^isage,  in  his  judg- 
ment, is  that  which  is  proposed  in  the  article 
"Gospels"  in  the  Encyclops'dtn  Britnnnira  (Ninth 
Editicm,  vol.  x.,  p.  801):  "Few  Greek  scholars 
will  be  induced  to  believe  that  the  author  of  the 
second  Gospel  deliberately  chose  to  end  a  book 
on  the  good  news  of  Christ  with  the  words  epko- 
bounto  (jar.  From  a  literary  point  of  view,  the 
gar,  and  from  a  moral  jioint  of  view  the  ill- 
omened  ephnhonnto,  make  it  almost  incredible 
that  these  words  represent  a  deliberate  termina- 
tion a.ssigned  by  an  author  to  a  composition  of 
his  own.  Others  have  suggested  that  the  last 
page  of  the  manuscript  may  have  been  acci- 
dentally destroyed.  But  this  suggestion  seems 
to  overlook  the  consideration  that  the  man- 
uscript was  in  all  probability  written,  not  for  a 
private  library,  but  for  use  in  the  church,  and 
that  it  would  immediately  be  multiplied  by 
copies.  Again,  we  know,  from  reference  to 
Matt.  28  :  8  and  Luke  24  :  9,  that  the  common 
tradition  ceases  with  the  return  of  the  women 
from  the  Lord's  tomb."  (That  is  to  say,  what- 
ever any  one  of  the  three  evangelists  records 


266 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


9  1[  Now  when  Jesus  was  risen  early  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  he  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene,  out  of 
whom  he  had  cast  seven  devils. 

10  And  she  went  and  told  them  that  had  been  with 
him,  as  they  mourned  and  wept. 

1 1  And  they,  when  they  heard  that  he  was  alive, 
and  had  been  seen  of  her,  believed  not. 


9  iNow  when  he  was  risen  early  on  the  first  day  of 
the   week,   he  appeared   first  to   Mary    Magdalene, 

10  from  whom  he  had  cast  out  seven  demons.  She 
went  and  told  them  that  had  been  with  him,  as  they 

11  mourned  and  wept.  And  they,  when  they  heard 
that  he  was  alive,  and  had  been  seen  of  her,  dis- 
believed. 


1  The  two  oldest  Greek  mauuscripta,  and  some  other  authorities,  omit  Trom  ver.  9  to  the  end. 

different  ending  to  the  Gospel. 


Some  other  authorities  have  a 


after  that  point  is  peculiar  to  himself;  material 
common  to  all  extends  no  farther.)  "  But  it  is 
precisely  at  this  point  that  the  genuine  Mark 
(i6 : 8)  also  terminates.  Now,  that  a  page  should 
have  been  torn  out  containing  just  that  part  of 
Mark  which  followed  after  the  close  of  the  com- 
mon tradition  would  be  a  most  remarkable  and 
unlikely  coincidence.  It  seems  far  more  prob- 
able that  Mark  ends  his  Gospel  here  because  tlie 
common  tradition  ended  here,  and  because  he 
scrupled  to  add  anything  to  the  notes  and  tradi- 
tions which  he  knew  to  rest  upon  a  higher  au- 
thority than  his  own.  If  this  be  the  true  ex- 
planation, it  stamps  with  the  seal  of  a  higher 
authority  such  traditions  as  have  been  preserved 
to  us  by  so  scrupulous  an  author." 

From  the  historical  and  ecclesiastical  point  of 
view,  the  passage  is  canonical — i.  e.  it  is  a  part 
of  a  book  that  the  church  has  received  as  a 
whole  into  the  Canon.  But  the  question  re- 
mains for  the  interpreter  whether  its  testimony 
is  to  be  received  as  of  equal  authority  with  that 
of  the  Gospels  in  general.  This  question  must 
be  answered  in  the  negative.  The  suggestion 
above  cited  seems  to  afford  a  sufficient  account 
of  the  fact  that  the  original  document  of  Mark 
was  so  abruptly  terminated.  If  it  was  so  ter- 
minated, and  was  in  circulation  with  so  abrupt 
an  ending,  it  woitld  be  most  natural  that  some 
one  should  add  a  conclusion  to  complete  so  un- 
finished a  work.  That  conclusion  would  be 
added  at  a  very  early  date,  and  would  naturally 
be,  exactly  as  we  find  it,  an  epitome,  a  summary 
without  details,  of  events  subsequent  to  the 
ones  already  recorded.  Such  a  conclusion  rep- 
resents the  tradition  of  the  church,  or  of  some 
part  of  tlie  church,  respecting  the  events  of 
which  it  speaks  ;  but  the  transcript  of  the  tra- 
dition is  anonymous,  and  the  one  thing  tliat  we 
know  about  it  is  that  it  is  to  be  separated  from 
the  Gospel  to  which  it  has  been  attached. 
Therefore  its  testimony  is  to  be  regarded  as 
testimony  of  the  second  class,  one  degree  re- 
moved from  testimony  of  tlie  first  authority. 
It  will  be  observed,  however,  that  there  are 
some  indications  that  this  summary  was  not 
made  wholly  by  compilation  from  the  other 
Gospels,  some  statements  being  introduced  here 
that  are  found  nowhere  else  in  the  Scriptures — 


a  fact  that  would  give  to  its  testimony  a  certain 
additional  value  as  that  of  an  independent  wit- 
ness to  what  was  believed  in  the  church. 

9.  The  word  for  first  day  of  the  week 
{prote  sabbaton)  is  different  from  the  one  that  is 
used  by  Mark  at  verse  2  {te.  mia  ton  sabhatbn). — 
First  to  Mary  Magdalene.  In  agreement 
with  John  (20:i-i8).  Matthew  speaks  first  of 
his  appearing  to  "  the  women,"  of  whom  he 
makes  Mary  Magdalene  to  be  one ;  Luke  omits 
this  appearing,  and  mentions  none  before  the 
one  that  occurred  on  the  way  to  Emmaus. — 
Out  of  whom  he  had  cast  seven  devils. 
A  fact  alluded  to  elsewhere  only  in  Luke  (8 : 2), 
and  not  in  John,  with  whose  statement  the  first 
part  of  the  sentence  coincides.  It  is  a  singular 
fact  that  this  reference  to  Mary  Magdalene's 
personal  history,  evidently  introduced  as  a 
mark  of  identification  upon  her,  stands  where 
it  does.  This  is  the  fourth  mentioning  of  her 
within  twenty  verses  (see  verse  1  and  chap.  15  : 
40  and  47),  and  it  is  the  last  that  occurs  in  the 
book.  A  continuous  writer  would  scarcely  in- 
troduce this  mark  of  identification  only  at  the 
fourth  and  last  recurrence  of  her  name.  The 
presence  of  it  liere  cannot  be  taken  otherwise 
than  as  a  sign  that  at  verse  9  a  new  hand  has 
taken  the  pen. — The  appearing  to  IMary  ^Magda- 
lene  is  recounted  at  length  by  John,  and  few 
scenes  in  the  life  of  our  Lord  are  more  pro- 
foundly natural  and  touching.  The  relations 
of  Mary  IMagdalene  to  the  resurrection  have 
immortalized  her,  even  as  the  relations  of 
Mary  of  Bethany  to  the  death  and  burial  of 
the  Saviour  have  immortalized  her  (jiatt.  26 :  13). 

10,  11.  In  these  verses  are  found  no  less  than 
six  words  or  constructions  that  occur  nowhere 
in  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  except  in  this  closing 
passage;  and  four  of  them  —  ekeinos,  "that," 
used  not  emphatically;  poreuomai,  "went;" 
thenomai,  "  seen  ;"  and  apisteb,  "  unbelieving  " — 
are  found  in  this  passage  more  than  once.  In- 
ferences from  the  employment  of  unaccustomed 
words,  it  is  true,  are  somewhat  precarious ;  but 
the  group  of  new  expressions  in  this  paragraph 
is  certainly  too  remarkable  to  be  overlooked, 
especially  in  connection  with  the  other  signs 
of  a  change  of  author. — Verse  10  is  parallel  to 
John  20  :  18;    but  the  final  words,   as   they 


I 


Ch.  XVL] 


MARK. 


257 


12  If  After  that  he  appeared  in  another  form  unto 
two"  of  them,  as  they  walked,  and  went  into  the 
fountry. 

i:{  And  they  went  and  told  il  unto  the  residue; 
neither  believed  they  them. 

14  %  Afterwards  he''  appeared  unto  the  eleven  as 
they  sat  at  meat,  and  upbraided  them  with  their  un- 
belief" and  hardness  of  heart,  because  they  believed 
not  them  which  had  seen  him  after  he  was  risen. 


12  And  after  these  things  he  was  manifested  in 
another  form  unto  two  oi  them,  as  they  walked  on 

13  their  way  into  the  country.  And  they  went  away 
and  told  it  unto  the  rest :  neither  believed  they 
them. 

14  And  afterward  he  was  manifested  unto  the  eleven 
thi-mselves  as  they  sat  at  meat ;  and  he  upbraided 
them  with  their  unbelief  and  liardness  of  liearl,  be- 
cause they  believed  Bot  them  who  bad  seen  him 


a  Luke  24  :  13 6  Luke  24  :  36 ;  1  Cor.  15  :  S c  Luke  24  :  25. 


mourned  and  wept,  arc  additional,  as  i.s  the 
wliole  of  verse  11,  JoJiii  having  said  nothing  of 
tlie  reception  that  the  tidings  of  Mary  Magda- 
lene met  with.  This  statement  caiuKjt  have 
been  derived  from  any  of  the  other  Gospels.  It 
is  noticeable  that  in  this  paragrajjli  the  slowness 
of  the  disciples  to  believe  in  the  resurrection  of 
their  Master  is  much  insisted  upon — almost  as 
if  the  author  desired  t<j  show  that  no  antici- 
pation of  such  an  event  was  present  in  their 
minds.  The  early  unbelief  of  those  who  so 
soon  afterward  were  preaching  the  resurrection 
of  J&sus  with  perfect  assiiranca  has  an  evidential 
value  of  the  greatest  importance.  The  testimony 
of  this  passage  to  the  fact  of  the  unbelief  is 
scarcely  less  valuable,  historically,  than  any 
other  testimony ;  for  it  comes  from  a  time 
wlien  the  truth  as  to  the  original  thoughts  of 
the  discii)les  on  the  subject  was  well  known 
in  the  circle  from  which  it  proceeded. 

12.  Parallel  to  Luke  24  :  13-32,  but,  like  the 
jircceding  verses,  it  is  only  a  bare  statement  of 
what  the  other  writer  tells  with  a  tender  and 
loving  particularity — in  this  respect,  not  at  all 
in  Mark's  mantier. — Unto  two  of  them.  Un- 
named here,  and  only  one  of  them,  Cleopas,  is 
named  in  Luke. — As  they  walked,  and  went 
into  the  country — /.  e.  to  Emmaus,  "  three- 
score furlongs  from  Jerusalem,"  but  of  un- 
known site.  The  time  appears  to  have  been  in 
the  afternoon  of  the  tirst  Lord's  Day. — In  an- 
other form.  Slight  variation  from  Luke,  who 
makes  the  failure  to  recognize  him  reside  in 
them,  not  in  him:  "Their  eyes  were  holden, 
that  they  should  not  know  him."  Luke's  ex- 
pression, "  Jesus  himself  drew  near  and  went 
with  them,"  seems  to  imply,  not  merely  a  hid- 
den identity,  but  an  identity  so  true  and  so 
manifest  tliat  they  might  have  recognized  him. 
This  way  of  .stating  the  matter,  however  (in 
another  form),  would  be  a  natural  popular 
mode  of  expression  to  one  who  was  telling  the 
story  briefly. — The  opening  phrase  in  this  verse, 
after  the.se  things  (meta  taiita)  "  is  not  found  in 
Mark,  though  many  opportunities  occurred  for 
using  it"  (Alford).  Neither  is  it  found  in  Mat- 
thew. 

13.  Parallel  as  to  the  event,  but  not  other- 

17 


wise,  to  Luke  24  :  33-35.  There,  as  here,  the 
two  return  from  their  journey  and  report  that 
they  have  met  the  Lord,  but  the  reception  of 
their  tidings  is  not  the  same.  Here  it  is  said, 
neither  believed  they  them — i.  e.  the  dis- 
ciples generally,  to  whom  tlie  report  was  made, 
did  not  believe.  In  Luke  tliey  were  already 
saying  among  tliemselves,  "  The  Lord  is  risen 

I  indeed,  and  hath  appeared  unto  Simon."  (Com- 
pare 1  Cor.  15:5,  where  alone  the  appearing  to 
Simon— I.  e.  to  Peter  (Cephas) — is  again  men- 
tioned.) Harmonists  have  tried  by  all  possible 
expedients  to  reconcile  these  two  statements, 
but  their  results  are  not  satisfactory.  A  not 
impossible  conjecture  is  that  of  Westcott  {The 
Go.spel  of  the  Resurrection),  which  is,  substan- 
tially, that  they  had  believed  the  testimony  of 
Peter  (though  they  had  not  believed  that  of  Mary 
Magdalene),  but  were  now  perplexed  at  hear- 
ing that  he  had  appeared  to  some  one  else  at 
a  distance,  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  them 

i  doubt  the  possibility  of  it  under  the  conditions 
of  time  and  space.     The  doubt  would  thus  be 

j  the  result  (tf  the  peculiarity  of  his  resurrection- 

j  life — a  life  in  which  lie  was  not  with  them  as 
before,  but  came  and  went  in  unexpected  and 
inexplicable  manifestations;  a  not  impossible 
conjecture,  but  only  a  conjecture.  Yet  doubt- 
less belief  and  disbelief  alternated  in  their 
minds  tlir(iugh  all  that  day  and  through  days 
tliat  followed. 

14.  First,  according  to  this  paragraph,  he  was 
manifested  to  Mary  Magdalene,  then  to  the  two 
disciples,  tlien  to  the  eleven ;  a  climax — one, 
two,  eleven — completed  by  the  emphatic  pro- 
noun, according  to  the  Revision,  "  unto  the 
eleven  themselves,"  as  if  this  completed  the 
course  of  manifestations.  From  this  point  to 
the  end  of  verse  18  the  i>assage  reads  as  if  the 
writer  was  thinking  of  only  one  interview.  If 
he  had  more  than  one  occasion  in  mind,  he 
has  not  indicated  it.  Api)arently,  however,  the 
testimony  of  the  other  Gospels  distributes  these 
occurrences  to  several  occasions.  Verse  14  ap- 
pears to  be  parallel  to  Luke  24  :  36-43 ;  although, 
if  it  is,  we  again  have  only  the  most  compend- 
ious account  of  an  event  that  is  elsewhere  given 
in  fuller  detail.     It  is  po.ssible,  however,  that 


258 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


15  And  he  said  unto  them,  Go"  ye  into  all  the  world, 
and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.* 

Hi  lle'^  that  believeth,and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved; 
but  he''  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned. 


15  after  he  was  risen.    And  he  said  unto  them,  (io  ye 
into  all   the   world,,  and  preach  the  gospel  to   the 

16  whole  creation.    lie  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved;   but  he  that  disbelieveth  shall  be^ 


a  Matt.  28:19;  John  20:  21.... &  Rom.  10:18;  Col.  1 :  23 c  John  3:  18,  36;  Acts  16  :  31-33;  Rom.  10  ;  9  ;  1  Pet.  3:  21 d  John  12:48; 

2  Thess.  2  :  12. 


some  other  interview,  otherwise  unrecorded,  is 
meant.  Tlie  Lord  came  to  liis  disciples  here 
wlien  tliey  were  reclining  at  the  table — a  fact 
that  appears  in  no  other  record — and  he  up- 
braided them  [dneidisen,  a  very  strong  word ; 
see  chap.  15  :  32 ;  Matt.  11 :  20)  with  their  un- 
belief and  hardness  of  heart,  because 
they  believed  not  them  which  had  seen 
him  after  he  was  risen — another  fact  that 
does  not  elsewhere  appear.  Possibly,  therefore, 
this  may  not  be  the  meeting  of  the  first  even- 
ing ;  but  we  cannot  be  certain. 

15.  At  first  sight  one  would  say  that  this 
verse  was  certainly  parallel  to  Matt.  28  :  19; 
but  it  is  impossible  to  prove  it  parallel,  the 
two  contexts  being  by  uo  means  the  same.  It 
is  quite  possible  that  the  command  as  cited  here 
was  uttered  on  another  .occasion,  earlier  than 
that  of  the  command  as>cited  by  Matthew.  It 
may  be  that  verses  14-18  preserve  the  remem- 
brance of  some  interviewvnot, elsewhere  record- 
ed, at  which  our  Lord  spoke  to  the  apostles  of 
their  mission  substantially  as  he  spoke  a  little 
later  to  a  larger  company  gathered  on  the  ap- 
pointed mountain  in  Galilee.  It  is  commonly 
thought  that  the  meeting  of  Matt.  28  :  16-20  is 
to  be  identified  with  that  of  1  Cor.  15  :  6,  when 
more  than  five  hundred  brethren  were  present. 
The  supposition  gives  a  richer  significance  to  the 
great  command  that  he  there  delivered,  making 
it  a  command  to  the  whole  body  of  his  follow- 
ers, and  not  merely  a  commission  to  his  apos- 
tles. "Whether  the  command  as  given  here  is 
quoted  from  that  occasion,  or,  as  now  suggested, 
from  an  earlier  one,  must  be  left  in  doubt.  If 
it  is  quoted  from  that  occasion,  there  is  a  long 
break  between  verses  14  and  15.  The  interview 
of  the  second  Lord's  Day  intervened  ;  so  did  the 
departure  to  Galilee  and  the  meeting  of  seven 
disciples  with  tlie  Lord  at  the  Lake  of  Gennes- 
aret. — The  command  as  cited  here  is  broader, 
if  possible,  than  in  Matthew,  though  less  full  in 
details.  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and 
preach  the  gospel,  or  glad  tidings,  "to  the 
whole  creation,"  not  to  every  creature,  which 
is  not  an  allowable  translation  of  pme  te  ktisei. 
The  broad  phrase  is  limited,  of  course,  by  the 
sense  of  the  passage.  "  The  whole  creation  " 
is  not  spoken  of  because,  as  Bengel  and  Alford 
have  it,  the  whole  creation  is  redeemed  by 
Christ,  and  by  Christianity  the  lower  creatures 


are  to  be  benefited  and  the  face  of  the  earth  is 
to  be  renewed.  That  thought  has  no  fitness  in 
this  connection.  Paul  claimed  (Coi.  i:23)  that 
the  gospel  had  already  been  "preached  in  all 
creation  which  is  under  heaven  "  (Revision) — 
i.  e.  everywhere.  Both  there  and  here  the  phrase 
is  broader  than  the  "  all  the  nations  " — i.  e.  Gen- 
tiles—of Matt.  28  :  19  and  Rom.  16  :  26.  It  is 
the  broadest  possible  designation  of  the  field  in 
which  the  Christian  teachers  could  find  human 
beings  to  listen  to  their  message.  Under  this 
commission  the  field  of  the  gospel  is  wherever 
the  gospel  can  be  received,  and  the  place  ap- 
pointed for  Christian  labor  is  literally  every- 
where. Contrast  this  with  the  exclusiveness 
required  during  our  Lord's  personal  ministry. 
Matt.  10  :  5,  6  :  "  Go  not  into  any  way  of  the 
Gentiles,  and  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans 
enter  ye  not,  but  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of 
the  house  of  Israel."  See  a  limitation  still 
more  sharp  and  startling  in  Matt.  15  :  24. — 
Very  significant  is  our  Saviour's  widening  of 
the  field  for  his  servants  after  his  resurrection. 
The  wider  purpose  was  announced  on  the  first 
evening  as  ready  for  fulfilment  (John  20 :  21).  In 
Luke  24  :  47,  as  in  Matt.  28  :  19,  he  gave  them 
"  all  the  nations  "  for  their  field,  and  here  "  the 
wliole  creation."  Again,  just  before  the  Ascen- 
sion, he  told  them  (Acts  i:  8)  that  their  mission 
was  to  carry  them  "  unto  the  uttermost  part  of 
the  earth."  Thus  the  commission  was  as  plain 
as  words  could  make  it ;  yet  the  national  nar- 
rowness required  time  and  further  training  be- 
fore it  would  allow  the  Christians  to  recognize 
the  world  as  their  field. 

16.  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized, 
shall  be  saved.  Broad  announcement  of  the 
purpose  and  result  of  the  proclamation.  It  was 
the  preaching  of  a  Saviour,  and  the  promise 
was  that  salvation  should  follow  for  every  one 
who  accepted  the  glad  tidings  and  obeyed  the 
Saviour.  The  first  step  is  believing — i.  e.  be- 
lieving the  message  and  believing  on  the  Sav- 
iour. To  believe  the  message  intellectually, 
without  the  faith  that  trusts  the  soul  to  the 
Saviour,  is  by  no  means  the  "  believing"  of  the 
Scriptures.  '(See  John  5  :  24 ;  6  :  40 ;  Acts  16  : 
31.)— The  second  step  is  baptism.  He  that 
believeth,  and  is  baptized.  Baptism  was 
with  the  apostles  a  first  and  natural  result  of 
believing,  an  expression  of  loyalty  to  Jesus 


Ch.  XVI.] 


MARK. 


259 


17  And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe: 
In  ray"  name  shall  they  cast  out  devils ;  they  shall 
speak'  with  new  tongues; 

18  They  shall  take  up  serpents ;'  and  if  they  drink 
any  deadly  thing,  it  shall  not  hurt  them:  they'' shall 
lay  hands  on  the  sick,  and  they  shall  recover. 


17  condemned.  And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that 
believe:   in  my  name  shall   they  cast  out  demons; 

18  they  shall  speak  with  'new  tongues  ;  they  shall  lake 
up  serpents,  and  if  they  drink  any  deadly  thing,  it 
shall  in  no  wise  hurt  them;  they  shall  lay  hands  on 
the  sick,  and  they  shall  recover. 


a  Luke  10  :  17  ;  Acts  5  :  16 ;  8:7 


16:18;  19: 12.... 6  AcU  2:4;  10:46;  1  Cor.  12  :  10,  28.... c  Luke  10  :  19;  Acts  28:  5. 
5 :  15,  16;  28  :  8. 1  Some  ancient  authorities  omit  n«io. 


that  almost  formed  a  part  of  the  original  act 
of  faith.  Any  thought  of  separating  baptism 
from  believing,  whether  by  anticipation  or  by 
delay,  would  have  seemed  to  them  a  perversion 
of  its  meaning.  (Study  especially,  in  its  con- 
nection, the  exhortation  of  Peter  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  Acts  2  :  38.)  It  is  on  this  principle 
that  the  expressions  were  made  by  which  Chris- 
tians who  reject  all  ideas  akin  to  baptismal  re- 
generation have  sometimes  been  i)erijlexed. 
Baptism  was  regarded  as  almost  a  part  of  the 
receiving  of  Chri.st,  so  closely  was  it  connected 
with  the  beginning  of  the  new  life  in  him. 
This  promise,  which  is,  substantially,  "  believe 
and  confess  —  accept  Christ  inwardly  in  the 
heart,  and  outwardly  before  the  world  —  and 
thou  shalt  be  saved,"  well  represents  the 
thought  of  the  apostolic  age  on  the  subject. 
(Compare  Ilom.  10  :  10;  Gal.  3  :  27.)— But  he 
that  believeth  not,  or  disbelieveth,  shall  be 
damned,  condemned.  The  ground  of  the  con- 
demnatiitn  is  (John  3 :  19)  that  "  light  is  come  into 
the  world,  and  men  loved  darkness  rather  than 
light,  because  their  deeds  were  evil."  Thus  he 
who  disbelieves  the  gospel  shall  by  reason  of 
that  very  fact  "be  condemned:"  his  own  act 
condemns  him,  implies  and  reveals  a  character 
in  which  he  is  CDiulenined  as  a  person  of  evil 
heart.  "  The  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him  " 
(John  3: 36),  and  wiU  Continue  to  abide  upon  him 
so  long  as  his  disbelieving  the  gospel  continues. 
The  ground  of  the  condemnation  is  essentially 
moral ;  the  ground,  indeed,  is  the  character  of 
God  ;  and  hence  the  condemnation  is  necessarj' 
and  inevitable.  In  the  final  judgment  upon  the 
disbelieving  soul  God  will  atlirm  this  righteous 
condemnation,  and  will,  without  an  arbitrary 
decree,  assign  the  soul  to  the  destiny  that  the 
condemnation  requires. — The  substitution  by 
the  revi.sers  of  "condemned"  for  damned  is 
a  gain  to  clearness  and  correctness  of  tliought, 
since  it  a.'<sociatcs  this  terrible  judgment  of  God 
more  distinctly  with  the  moral  considerations 
that  justify  it,  and  helps  to  show  how  far  his 
judgment  is  from  being  an  arbitrary  judgment. 
(See  Acts  17  :  31 ;  Rom.  2  :  5 ;  2  Cor.  5  :  10.) 

It  has  often  been  remarked  that  baptism  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  second  or  condemnatory 
clause  ;  so  that  disbelief  stands  alone  as  the 
ground  of  condemnation.     True;  but  baptism 


could  not  be  mentioned  in  that  clause.  "  He 
that  believeth  not  and  is  not  baptized  "  would 
be  unmeaning,  and  "  he  that  believeth  not,  or 
(believing)  is  not  baptized,"  would  misrepresent 
the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  Faith  and  baptism  are 
not  strictly  co-ordinate  in  their  relation  to  sav- 
ing grace,  though  by  divine  appointment  they 
are  companion  acts  to  the  Christian.  Yet  in  a 
modified  sense  it  is  true  that  "  he  that,  believ- 
ing, is  not  baptized,  shall  be,"  or  rather  is, 
thereby  "condemned,"  provided  that  the  in- 
struction of  his  Lord  in  the  matter  has  been 
made  known  to  him. 

17,  18.  These  verses  are  without  parallel  in 
the  words  of  our  Saviour,  and  they  contain  the 
nearest  approach  that  we  find  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament to  the  tone  and  coloring  of  the  Apoc- 
ryphal Gospels.  In  the  existing  uncertainty  aa 
to  the  source  of  this  entire  paragraph  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  know  exactly  how  they  should  be 
judged — whether  as  a  citation  of  our  Saviour's 
very  words,  or  as  the  interpretation  current  in 
the  church,  andjustly  attributed  to  him,  in  sub- 
stance if  not  in  i)recise  form,  of  the  signs  that 
did  follow  them  that  believe.  That  such 
signs  did  exi.st  in  the  early  church  —  though 
doubtless  not  in  the  ca.se  of  every  believer — is 
unquestionable ;  and  such  a  prediction  as  this 
would  be  sufficiently  fulfilled  by  the  general 
difiusion  of  them  in  the  body,  though  all  be- 
lievers did  not  possess  them. — In  my  name 
shall  they  cast  out  devils — a  power  already 
granted  to  the  apostles  wlicn  in  service  (Matt. 
10 : 8),  and  supposed,  at  lea.st  by  some,  to  be 
constantly  with  them  (Mark  9:  is,  19),  and  abun- 
dantly continued  in  the  church  (Act8«:7;  i6:m: 
19:15,16).  —  They  shall  speak  with  new 
tongues.  (See  Acts  2:4-11,  of  the  speaking 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  also  Acts  10  :  4G ;  19  : 
6;  1  Cor.  12  :  10;  14  :  1-28.)  There  is  much 
that  remains  unexplained  about  the  gift  of 
tongues,  but  of  the  reality  of  the  endowment 
there  is  no  room  for  doubt. — They  shall  take 
up  serpents.  (Compare  the  language  ad- 
dressed to  the  seventy  disciples  at  Luke  10  :  19, 
and  see  Acts  28  :  5  for  the  nearest  approach  to 
a  fulfilment.) — If  they  drink  any  deadly 
thing,  it  shall  not  hurt  them.  (See  again 
Luke  10  :  19.)  Tradition  relates  the  occurrence 
of  ftilfilments  of  this  prediction,  as  in  the  case 


260 


MARK. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


19  1[  So  then"  after  the  Lord  had  spoken  unto  them, 
he  was  received  up  into  heaven,  and  sat''  on  the  right 
hand  of  Ciod. 

2U  And  they  M-ent  forth,  and  preached  every  where, 
the  Lord"  working  with  lliein,  and  confirming  the  word 
with  signs  following.    Amen. 


19  So  then  the  Lord  Jesus,  after  he  had  spoken  unto 
them,  was  received  up  into  heaven,  and  sat  down  at 

20  the  right  hand  of  Ood.  And  they  weut  forth,  and 
preached  everywhere,  the  Lord  working  with  them, 
and  confirming  the  word  by  the  signs  that  followed. 
Amen. 


a  Acts  1 :  2,  3;  Luke  M:51 b  Ps.  110: 1 ;  1  Pet.  3:21 c  Acts  5  :  12  ;  Heb.  2  :4. 


of  the  apostle  John,  but  there  are  no  cases  re- 
corded ill  Scripture. — They  shall  lay  hands 
on  the  sick,  and  they  shall  recover.  Abun- 
dantly illustrated  in  the  early  Christian  history 

(Acts  3:7;  5  :  15  ;  9  :  34;  14  :  10  :  28  :  8).      FrOlU  JailieS   5  : 

14,  15  and  1  Cor.  12  :  9  it  is  apparent  that  heal- 
ing was  regarded  by  the  Christians,  apart  from 
the  apostles,  as  a  gift  that  resided  in  some  of 
their  number.  Only  in  Acts  28  :  8  is  there  any 
allusion  to  the  laying  on  of  hands  for  the  pur- 
pose of  healing;  in  James  5  :  14  the  means  is 
anointing  with  oil. — The  only  things  peculiar 
in  this  enumeration  of  "signs"  are  the  prom- 
ises respecting  the  taking  up  of  serpents  and 
the  drinking  of  deadly  things.  According  to 
the  analogy  of  all  evangelical  miracles,  such 
promises  on  the  lips  of  our  Saviour  would  be 
limited,  by  the  nature  of  the  gospel,  to  occa- 
sions when  they  would  serve  the  real  purpose 
of  the  gospel.  The  power  of  miracles  was 
never  entrusted  to  men  to  be  used  for  tlieir 
own  ends.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  if 
an  apostle  had  tried  to  serve  some  selhsh  i)er- 
sonal  purpose  by  miracle,  he  would  have  foimd 
the  power  failing  him. 

19.  The  last  two  verses  form  a  kind  of  spe- 
cial conclusion,  dealing  in  general  terms  alone, 
and  not  picturing  any  single  events.  Author- 
ities are  divided  between  the  Lord  and  "the 
Lord  Jesus,"  the  revisers  adopting  the  latter. 
The  title  Lord,  applied  absolutely  to  Jesus,  is 
not  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  Gospels,  and 
the  use  of  it  here  and  in  the  following  verse  has 
been  taken  as  a  sign  of  the  later  date  of  this 
paragraph,  "  after  that  had  become  the  almost 
uniform  way  in  which  the  Church  spoke  of  her 
Divine  Head  "  (Phimptre) ;  but  the  inference  is 
doubtful.  —  After  the  Lord  had  spoken 
unto  them — i.  e.  after  lie  had  given  them 
such  commands  and  promises  as  have  just 
been  recorded.  If  verses  19,  20  did  not  form  a 
separate  generalizing  paragraph,  we  might  feel 
compelled  to  say  that  these  words  placed  the 
Ascension  immediately  after  the  interview  just 
mentioned ;  but,  as  it  is,  tliere  is  no  such  neces- 
sity.— Was  received  up  into  heaven.  There 
is  no  pictorial  representation  in  this  such  as  we 
find  at  Acts  1  :  9.  There  is  no  reason  to  think 
that  the  writer  had  the  visible  scene  of  the  As- 
cension at  all  in  mind  with  any  purpose  of  pre- 


senting it  to  the  imagination  of  his  readers.  The 
assertion  is  simply  that  he  was  received  to 
heaven,  according  to  his  own  prediction  (John  6: 
62;  20: 17). — And  sat  on  the  right  hand  of 
God.  Regarded  as  the  seat  of  honor  and  of 
administration.  His  sitting  there  appears  in 
the  New  Testament  as  the  fulfilment  of  the 
prophetic  promise  in  Ps.  110  :  1,  where  is  given 
the  assurance  of  full  power  and  victorious  do- 
minion. (See  note  on  Mark  12  :  36;  also  Rom. 
8  :  34 ;  1  Pet.  3  :  22 ;  Heb.  1:3;  8:1;  10  :  12 ; 
12  :  2.)  The  mention  of  his  sitting  down  at 
the  right  hand  of  God  is  the  appropriate  close 
for  the  record  of  his  life,  and  esj^ecially,  per- 
haps, for  the  record  of  Mark,  in  which  his  in- 
tense activity  is  so  clearly  exhibited.  Not  that 
his  sitting  there  is  a  symbol  of  rest :  the  throne 
is  not  a  seat  of  repose,  but  the  seat  of  unceasing 
administrative  action.  Our  Saviour's  sitting 
down  at  the  right  hand  of  God  is  a  symbol  of 
his  cessation  from  the  toil  that  occupied  him 
before,  but  it  is  still  more  profoundly  a  symbol 
of  continued  activity — the  activit_y  that  follows 
upon  attainment  to  the  possession  of  universal 
sovereignty.  This  brief  assertion,  therefore,  he 
was  received  up  into  heaven,  and  sat  on 
the  right  hand  of  God,  tells  of  the  complete 
success  of  our  Saviours  mission  to  the  earth  and 
the  full  certainty  that  the  results  that  remained 
to  be  wrought  out  in  human  history  will  be  ac- 
complished. He  humbled  himself  and  became 
obedient,  unto  death  ;  wherefore  God  also  high- 
ly exalted  him,  and  gave  him  the  name  tliat  is 
above  every  name,  that  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
every  knee  should  bow. 

20,  Between  the  preceding  verse  and  this 
there  is  an  untranslated  antithesis :  Ilo  men 
kurios  .  .  .  ekeinoide.  The  Lord  .  .  .  was  re- 
ceived up  into  heaven,  .  .  .  and  they  went 
forth,  and  preached  every  where.  Here 
came  to  pass  the  exact  fulfilment  of  his  word 
in  Matthew :  "  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in 
heaven  and  in  earth  ;  go  ye  therefore  and  make 
disciples  of  all  the  nations."  The  triumphant 
Saviour  was  ready  to  send  out  the  heralds  of 
his  completed  salvation,  and  at  his  bidding  they 
went  forth. — Every  where.  Not  to  be  taken, 
of  course,  as  a  declaration  that  the  word  had 
already  been  preached  everywhere,  and  not  a.s 
a  basis  for  any  conclusion  as  to  the  date  at 


[Ch.  XVI. 


MARK. 


261 


which  the  statement  was  committed  to  writing. 
Tlie  apostles  and  their  companions  did  go 
every  where  a-s  rapidly  as  tlie  Lord  o]>ened 
the  way  for  them —The  Lord  working  w  ith 
them.  TJie  unseen  Lord  Jesus,  now  glorified, 
recognized  ;is  working  with  his  humble  servants 
on  the  earth.  Their  activity  was  his  activity, 
and  his  strengtli  was  tlie  means  of  their  tri- 
umj)]!.  The  life  of  the  chureli  on  the  earth  is 
the  continued  life  of  Christ.  Compare  the  re- 
lation of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  to  the  Gospel 
of  Luke  as  stated  in  the  opening  sentence: 
"  TJie  former  treati.se  have  I  made,  of  all  that 
Jesus  began  both  to  do  an(i  to  teach,"  the  verb 
"  began  "  being  in  the  emphatic  position.  Wliat 
was  done  in  the  church  wiis  that  which  Jesus 
continued  "both  to  do  and  to  teach."  (See 
Bernard's  I'^oc/ress  of  Doctrine  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment.)—He  is  .still  working  with  his  people 
through  the  agencies  that  were  brought  into  | 


I  use  by  his  Spirit,  but  the  means  that  were 
most  (ILstinctly  in  the  writer's  mind  were  the 
mirades.  Working  with  them,  and  con- 
firming the  word  with  signs  following, 

or  "by  the  signs  that  followed."  (Compare 
Heb.  2  :  3,  4.)— Tliis  testimony  to  the  presence 
and  working  of  the  Saviour  came,  evidently, 
out  of  the  midst  of  the  age  of  miracles,  when 
the  visible  supernatural  signs  were  recognized 
among  the  most  striking  tokens  of  Ids  presence. 
Even  tlien,  liowevcr,  the  best  signs  of  his  pres- 
ence were  jierceived  by  some  to  be  tlie  spiritual 
operations  of  his  gospel.  (See  1  Cor.  12  :  29-13  : 
13.)  Graces  are  better  than  gifts.  Of  graces,  tlie 
abiding  graces  are  the  best ;  and  of  these,  "  the 
greatest  is  love."  "God  is  love,  and  he  that 
abideth  in  love  abideth  in  God,  and  God  in 
him."  Love  is  the  Lord's  own  sign  (joun  is :  35) : 
"By  this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my 
disciples,  if  ye  have  love  one  to  another." 


THE  END. 


Date  Due 


^'r    >-      :*^    ■  jT 


^-:^ 


012  00056  0088 


\o 


^ 


#1 


